Buckley

Johnson v. Buckley

Good Law
356 F.3d 1067·2004 WL 137070
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 28, 2004No. 02-17094California4,758 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelson, J.

When W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., (Gore) closed its Phoenix, Arizona, electronic parts plant in 1998, many of its employees lost their jobs before they qualified for an additional year of vesting and benefit accrual credit under Gore’s stock ownership and pension benefit plan (Plan). Gore’s Plan used the long-standing “elapsed-time method” to calculate vesting and benefit accrual. That method counts the period of time the employee is employed, and not the number of hours an employee has worked during a given twelve-month period.

Two classes of Gore’s former Phoenix employees now appeal the final judgment of the district court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The five claims presented on appeal center on three arguments. The employees primarily assert that the elapsed-time regulation violates ERISA’s vesting and benefit accrual requirements. Subsidiary to that claim, they allege that even if the regulation is lawful, Gore nonetheless violated it. Finally, they allege that Gore violated its own Plan when it interpreted the term “layoff’ to mean a temporary absence and not a permanent loss of employment. Because the elapsed-time regulation is valid, *1070 and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.