Watkins
Watkins v. Westinghouse Hanford Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Rymer, J.
This is our second trip through the thicket of pension plans at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (HNR). In Carver v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., 951 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3036 , 120 L.Ed.2d 905 (1992), we considered whether Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC)’s Operating and Engineering Pension Plan (HOEP Plan), adopted after the consolidation of HNR’s operations, improperly failed to recognize prior service for other contractors at HNC. We held that the operative plan was the formal.plan adopted in December 1987, and that ERISA does not require WHC to tack the years of service *1520 accrued for predecessor employers onto its pension plan for purposes of calculating benefits. We also suggested that if WHC had made knowing false representations or con-cealments of material facts, it might be equitably estopped from interpreting the plan in a manner which does not give HNR employees credit for the time they believe they deserve. Id. at 1087-88. It is principally this issue — whether WHC can be equitably estopped on account of misrepresentations it made to plaintiff Jimmie Watkins about aggregating prior service and thereby be required to…