Carl Michael, an Individual v. Riverside Cement Company Pension Plan

Opinion by Judge CANBY; Dissent by Judge PAEZ.

Carl Michael (“Michael”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Riverside Cement Company Pension Plan in this action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a). Michael contends that his early retirement benefits were impermissibly reduced by a subsequent amendment to the Riverside plan in violation of ERISA’s anti-cutback rule, 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g). We conclude that he is correct, and we accordingly reverse the judgment of the district court.

I.

The material facts of this case are undisputed. The controversy arises in an unusual context, because Michael took an early retirement and then returned to work at Riverside a few years later. Riverside’s retirement plan was subsequently amended, and Michael thereafter retired for the second time. His claim, which we find meritorious, is that the terms of his second retirement under the amended plan impermissibly “eliminat[ed] or redue[ed]” his earlier retirement benefits as they had been guaranteed by the plan prior to its amendment. See 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g)(2)(A).

Michael retired for the first time…

dissenting:

Carl Michael claims that an amendment to the Riverside Cement Company Pension Plan “decreased” his “accrued benefit” and therefore violated ERISA § 204(g), 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g). The majority agrees, concluding that (1) a component of Michael’s “accrued benefit” under the unamended plan was the promise that, if Michael returned to work after his first retirement, there would be no offset, or deduction, for benefits already received and (2) the offset introduced in the amended plan-the actuarial equivalent of the benefits he received during his first retirement-decreased that accrued benefit. The issue Michael raises is a complicated one-one that does not lend itself to an easy answer. I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s application of § 204(g) in the context of this case, and therefore I respectfully dissent.

One fundamental proposition in particular disposes of Michael’s § 204(g) claim. As the majority acknowledges, “Michael was better off after the amendment than he would have been without it.” Slip Op. at 13365. That is, comparing the periodic benefit Michael would have received had the plan not been amended in 1991 to the benefit Michael received under…

266 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2001) CARL MICHAEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY PENSION PLAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. No. 99-55519 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted November 15, 2000 Filed September 17, 2001 Joseph Ribakoff, Long Beach, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. Thomas N. Charchut, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, L.L.P., Santa Monica, California; Karen K. Suhre, Hughes & Luce, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-00060-DOC Before: William C. Canby, Jr., M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. 1 Opinion by Judge Canby; Dissent by Judge Paez Canby, Circuit Judge 2 Carl Michael ("Michael") appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Riverside Cement Company Pension Plan in this action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 (a). Michael contends that his early retirement benefits were impermissibly reduced by a subsequent amendment to the…