niebauer v. crane & co., inc., 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Niebauer v. Crane & Co., Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/niebauer-v-crane-co-inc-1st-cir-2015 1/33

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 2059

ROBERT NI EBAUER,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

CRANE & CO. , I NC. ; CRANE & CO. , I NC. EXECUTI VE SEVERANCE PLAN,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Bar r on, Sel ya, and St ahl ,Ci r cui t J udges.

Rober t A. Fi sher , wi t h whomJ onat han A. Kesel enko, Chr i st opherS. Feudo, and Fol ey Hoag LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Davi d C. Casey, wi t h whom Rober t B. O' Br i en and Li t t l erMendel son, P. C. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

Apr i l 21, 2015



STAHL, Circuit Judge. I n t hi s case ar i si ng under t he

Empl oyee Ret i r ement I ncome Secur i t y Act ( "ERI SA") , 29 U. S. C.

§§ 1001 et seq. , Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant Rober t Ni ebauer al l eges t hat

t he admi ni st r at or of hi s f or mer empl oyer ' s execut i ve sever ance pl an

deni ed hi msever ance benef i t s af t er er r oneousl y det er mi ni ng t hat he

had r et i r ed vol unt ar i l y f r om hi s posi t i on. See 29 U. S. C.

§ 1132( a) ( 1) ( B) . Ni ebauer f ur t her al l eges that hi s f or mer empl oyer

i mpr oper l y i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s r i ght s under t he pl an, i n vi ol at i on

of 29 U. S. C. § 1140. The di st r i ct cour t grant ed Def endant s-

Appel l ees summar y j udgment on bot h count s. See Ni ebauer v. Cr ane,

44 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D. Mass. 2014) .

Because we f i nd t hat t he pl an admi ni st r at or ' s deci si on t o

deny Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m f or benef i t s was bot h suppor t ed by

subst ant i al evi dence and pr ocedur al l y pr oper , we af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment i n t hat r egar d. However , we vacat e t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment as t o t he i nt er f er ence cl ai m and r emand

f or appl i cat i on of t he cor r ect st andar d of r evi ew.

I. Facts & Background 1

At t he t i me of t he event s i n quest i on, Rober t Ni ebauer

was t he chi ef t echnol ogy of f i cer of Cr ane & Co. , I nc. ( "Cr ane") .

Headquar t er ed i n Dal t on, Massachuset t s, Cr ane pr oduces speci al t y

1 As bot h par t i es and t he di st r i ct cour t di d, we dr aw t hef act s f r om t he f ul l summar y j udgment r ecor d. We det ai l i nf r a t hespeci f i c i nf or mat i on and document s t hat wer e bef ore t he pl anadmi ni st r at or when i t made i t s deci si ons.

-2-



paper pr oduct s, i ncl udi ng t he banknot e paper used f or pr i nt i ng

Uni t ed St at es cur r ency.

Cr ane mai nt ai ns an execut i ve sever ance pl an ( "pl an") ,

under whi ch sever ance benef i t s ar e avai l abl e t o desi gnat ed

empl oyees who have been i nvol unt ar i l y t ermi nated. Because the pl an

i s an empl oyee wel f ar e benef i t pl an, i t i s gover ned by ERI SA, 29

U. S. C. §§ 1001 et seq. Empl oyees who vol unt ar i l y l eave Cr ane ar e

ent i t l ed t o benef i t s onl y i f t hey do so f or "good r eason, " whi ch

t he pl an def i nes as cer t ai n changes t o an empl oyee' s posi t i on, such

as rel ocat i on, si gni f i cant r educt i on i n sal ar y, or subst ant i al

changes t o t he empl oyee' s j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es. 2 The pl an r eserves

t o t he admi ni st r at or —her e, t he compensat i on commi t t ee of Cr ane' s

boar d of di r ect or s — "f ul l di scret i onar y power and aut hor i t y t o

const r ue, i nt er pr et and admi ni st er t he Pl an [ and] t o make Benef i t

El i gi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons. " As a Cr ane execut i ve, Ni ebauer was

cover ed by t he pl an.

I n hi s capaci t y as chi ef t echnol ogy of f i cer , Ni ebauer

r epor t ed t o t he chi ef execut i ve of f i cer ( "CEO") of t he company —a

posi t i on occupi ed, as of Oct ober 2011, by St ephen DeFal co, a recent

hi r e. One of DeFal co' s pr i or i t i es upon t aki ng of f i ce was repai r i ng

a f r ayed r el at i onshi p wi t h a si gni f i cant cl i ent of t he company, t he

2 Per t he ter ms of t he pl an, an event const i t ut es " goodr eason" onl y i f t he empl oyee pr ovi des wr i t t en not i ce t o t he Cr ane' sboar d of di r ect or s, speci f yi ng t he event i n quest i on, wi t hi n si xt ydays of t he f i r st occur r ence of such event .

-3-



Bur eau of Engr avi ng and Pr i nt i ng ( "BEP" ) , a di vi si on of t he Uni t ed

St at es Depar t ment of t he Treasury. Wor k on t he l at est BEP pr oj ect ,

cal l ed "Type V, " had st al l ed as a r esul t of t echnol ogi cal

di f f i cul t i es encount er ed i n pr i nt i ng t he paper used f or $100

banknot es. To addr ess the pr obl ems af f l i ct i ng Type V, DeFal co

l aunched a t ask f or ce wi t hi n Cr ane, r ef er r ed t o i nt er nal l y as

"Pr oj ect Momentum, " and desi gnat ed an empl oyee named Ri ch Rowe as

t he pr oj ect l eader . As par t of Proj ect Moment um, DeFal co deci ded

t o st at i on a Cr ane st af f member at t he BEP pr i nt i ng f aci l i t y i n

For t Wort h, Texas, who woul d serve as t he company r epr esent at i ve

and l i ai son t o t he Massachuset t s headquar t er s.

On November 18, 2011, DeFal co asked Ni ebauer t o serve as

t he Proj ect Moment um deput y i n Texas. Ni ebauer agr eed, on t he

underst andi ng t hat he was t o be i n Texas onl y t o t he end of t he

cal endar year . However , af t er t hei r conver sat i on, DeFal co not ed i n

an emai l t o t he BEP cont act t hat Ni ebauer woul d "spend subst ant i al

t i me at [ BEP] f aci l i t i es unt i l at l east Mar ch [ 2012] . " Ni ebauer

began t o have "second t hought s" about t he l engt h of t he ass i gnment ,

and al so became concer ned about personnel deci si ons t hat DeFal co

had made i n connect i on wi t h Pr oj ect Moment um, i ncl udi ng hi s

addi t i on t o t he Massachuset t s t eam of cer t ai n i ndi vi dual s whom

Ni ebauer f el t BEP di st r ust ed.

Because of t hese concer ns, Ni ebauer and DeFal co schedul ed

a phone cal l f or November 22 to revi ew t he pr oj ect ' s per sonnel and

-4-



t he l engt h of Ni ebauer ' s commi t ment . The t wo char act er i ze t hi s

cal l di f f er ent l y. Accor di ng t o DeFal co, Ni ebauer ef f ect i vel y

at t empt ed t o ext r act sever ance benef i t s i n exchange f or agr eei ng t o

t he Texas ass i gnment . Accor di ng t o Ni ebauer , he communi cat ed t o

DeFal co t hat he bel i eved that hi s new Pr oj ect Moment um r ol e

const i t ut ed a t r i gger i ng event under t he sever ance pl an, ent i t l i ng

hi m t o benef i t s. I n r esponse, Ni ebauer says, DeFal co cal l ed t hi s

cl ai m "cr azy t al k, " s t at i ng t hat sever ance was awar ded onl y i f an

execut i ve was f i r ed, and Ni ebauer was not bei ng f i r ed. Ni ebauer

admi t s t o t el l i ng DeFal co t hat he was i n a posi t i on of "maxi mum

l ever age" vi s- à- vi s secur i ng sever ance benef i t s. I n any event ,

Ni ebauer ul t i matel y r ecommi t t ed t o t he Texas assi gnment .

Ther eaf t er , t eam member s wor ked t o get Pr oj ect Moment um

up and r unni ng, and schedul ed meet i ngs wi t h BEP repr esent at i ves i n

For t Wor t h f or Monday, December 5. Ni ebauer , who had not yet

r el ocat ed t o Texas, was sl at ed t o make t he t r i p. I n an exchange

wi t h Rowe over t he precedi ng weekend, however , Ni ebauer began t o

expr ess r el uct ance t o t r avel and event ual l y deci ded not t o go. I n

a December 4 emai l t o Rowe, Ni ebauer sai d t hat he had "made some

deci si ons t hat [ he] must i nf or m[ Rowe] of . " Ni ebauer al so emai l ed

DeFal co on December 4, aski ng t o set up a meet i ng "concer n[ i ng] a

deci si on [ he] ha[ d] r eached. "

The ensui ng December 5 phone cal l bet ween Ni ebauer and

DeFal co i s a f ocal poi nt of t hi s l i t i gat i on; t he par t i es vehement l y

-5-



di sput e t he cont ent and i mpor t of t he conver sat i on. Ni ebauer ' s

account i s t hat he cal l ed DeFal co on hi s cel l phone and t ol d hi m

t hat hi s per si st ent concer ns about t he st r uct ur e of Pr oj ect

Moment um l ef t hi m no choi ce but t o "at l east consi der r et i r ement "

i f t he pr oj ect or gani zat i on di d not change. 3 At some poi nt

t her eaf t er , t he par t i es agr ee t hat t he cal l was dr opped. Ni ebauer

asser t s t hat , when the connect i on was r eest abl i shed, DeFal co

r ebuf f ed hi s of f er t o r epeat what he had sai d; i nst ead, DeFal co

decl ar ed that he had hear d enough, and t hat i t was hi s pol i cy not

t o t r y t o t al k an execut i ve out of r et i r ement . Accor di ng t o

DeFal co, however , Ni ebauer t ol d hi m t hat he was " r et i r [ i ng] now,

ef f ect i ve i mmedi at el y, " si nce he was not goi ng t o recei ve sever ance

at t he concl usi on of Proj ect Moment um. DeFal co t ol d Ni ebauer t hat

he was di sappoi nt ed but under st ood hi s deci si on t o ret i r e and

wi shed hi m wel l .

I n t he af t ermath of t he December 5 phone cal l , both

Ni ebauer and DeFal co sent emai l s t o var i ous i ndi vi dual s expl ai ni ng

what had happened. That af t ernoon, DeFal co emai l ed Char l es

Ki t t r edge, t he f ormer CEO of Cr ane who had st ayed on as chai r man of

t he boar d, l et t i ng hi m know t hat Ni ebauer had j ust t ol d DeFal co

t hat "he woul d be r et i r i ng i mmedi at el y. " DeFal co al so i nf or med t he

Proj ect Moment um t eam by emai l t he next day t hat Ni ebauer had

3 Ni ebauer t est i f i ed at hi s deposi t i on t hat t he r eason he gaveDeFal co f or bei ng f or ced t o consi der r et i r ement was hi s f ai l ur e t onegot i ate a sever ance package.

-6-



deci ded t o r et i r e and t hat hi s l ast wor ki ng day was l i kel y t o be

December 16.

For hi s par t , Ni ebauer emai l ed hi s daught er t he mor ni ng

af t er hi s conver sat i on wi t h DeFal co, t el l i ng her t hat he had "made

t he announcement t o [DeFal co] t hat [ he di d] not want t o go l i ve i n

For t Wor t h f or t he next s i x mont hs and want [ ed] t o r et i r e. " On t he

af t ernoon of December 5, Ni ebauer al so f orwarded t o DeFal co an

emai l f r oma BEP cont act who was t r yi ng t o schedul e a phone cal l .

I n f or war di ng t he emai l , Ni ebauer asked DeFal co f or gui dance i n

r espondi ng t o the BEP emai l , not i ng t hat he want ed " t hi s t o be a

smoot h t r ansi t i on but under [ st ood] i f [ DeFal co want ed] t o make i t

mor e abr upt . " Ni ebauer t hen f or war ded t he emai l chai n t o hi s wi f e,

who r epl i ed, "Sounds l i ke you t ol d [ DeFal co] t hat r et i r ement i s

r out e. " 4

Fol l owi ng t he December 5 cal l , DeFal co i nst r uct ed J ay

Wi ckl i f f , t he head of human r esour ces at Cr ane, t o reach out t o

Ni ebauer t o di scuss next st eps. Wi ckl i f f and Ni ebauer met on t he

mor ni ng of December 6. The par t i es' char act er i zat i ons of t hi s

meet i ng di ver ge. Ni ebauer cl ai ms t hat he t ol d Wi ckl i f f t hat he had

not vol unt ar i l y r et i r ed but r at her DeFal co had " r et i r ed hi m" — but

t hat i f he wer e goi ng t o ret i r e, he woul d need t o l ear n mor e about

4 As wi l l be f ur t her di scussed bel ow, Ni ebauer ' s posi t i on i nt hi s l i t i gat i on i s t hat he never expr essed an i nt ent t o r et i r e, nordi d he t el l ot her s t hat he had r et i r ed. I nst ead, he mai nt ai ns onappeal t hat , af t er t he December 5 cal l , he t ol d peopl e t hat DeFal co"had r et i r ed hi m. "

-7-



hi s f i nanci al opt i ons. Cr ane asser t s t hat Ni ebauer r ei t er at ed hi s

deci si on t o r et i r e, and t hat he and Wi ckl i f f di scussed set t i ng a

r et i r ement dat e that t ook i nt o account Ni ebauer ' s r emai ni ng

vacat i on t i me. Wi ckl i f f emai l ed DeFal co af t er t he meet i ng,

st at i ng, " [ Ni ebauer ] conf i r med t o me thi s mor ni ng hi s deci si on t o

r et i r e. " Wi ckl i f f added, "We di scussed havi ng some ki nd of event

t o honor hi s car eer . At f i r st he t hought he di d not want t o do

anythi ng, but deci ded t hat a l ow key event . . . woul d be best . "

Lat er t hat day, DeFal co post ed a message on Cr ane' s

i nt er nal communi cat i ons syst em f or mal l y announci ng t he l aunch of

Proj ect Moment um. Ni ebauer ' s name was not i ncl uded i n t he l i st of

t eammember s. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , a col l eague wr ot e i n an emai l t o

Ni ebauer t hat he had j ust seen t he announcement , whi ch "sai d i t

al l . " I n t he ensui ng back- and- f or t h, Ni ebauer wr ot e t hat he

bel i eved t hat hi s l ast day of work woul d be t he next day, December

7, and t hat hi s " [ r ] et i r ement day [ woul d] most l i kel y be Febr uar y

1st . " Ni ebauer expl ai ned t o t he col l eague t hat hi s "deci si on t o

l eave was t hat i n [ hi s] opi ni on, t he company [ had] become

di shonor abl e. " Ni ebauer al so emai l ed Rowe, t he l eader of Pr oj ect

Moment um, st at i ng, " I am assumi ng t hat you know about my pendi ng

r et i r ement , " 5 and that , si nce the announcement of t he pr oj ect t eam

5 The copy of t hi s t yped emai l i n t he r ecor d bear s handwr i t t enquot at i on mar ks ar ound "pendi ng ret i r ement . "

-8-



had been post ed wi t hout hi s name, he expect ed t hat he woul d not

at t end upcomi ng t eam meet i ngs.

Al so on December 6, Ni ebauer met wi t h Ri ck Kendal l , who

handl ed r et i r ement cal cul at i ons f or Cr ane' s execut i ves i n

conj unct i on wi t h an out si de f i r m, Tower s Wat son, whi ch act ed as

Cr ane' s act uar i al consul t ant . Ni ebauer and Kendal l di scussed

di f f er ent opt i ons f or r et i r ement dat es. Kendal l advi sed t hat

obt ai ni ng a r et i r ement cal cul at i on f r om Tower s Wat son di d not

commi t hi m t o r et i r i ng, but t hat i f he di d r et i r e, he woul d not be

el i gi bl e f or sever ance. I n emai l cor r espondence t hr ough December

9, Ni ebauer asked Kendal l t o use Febr uar y 1, 2012 as a basi s f or a

r et i r ement cal cul at i on, and t hen l at er pr oposed Mar ch 1, 2012 as

hi s r et i r ement dat e. Kendal l t hen t ol d Ni ebauer vi a emai l on

December 9 t hat hi s l ast day of work woul d be J anuary 27, 2012,

f ol l owed by f i ve weeks of vacat i on, f or a r et i r ement dat e of Mar ch

1. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , Ni ebauer wr ot e i n an emai l t o hi s wi f e t hat

t hey coul d "ki ss t he sever ance opt i on good bye. "

Begi nni ng on December 12, Ni ebauer began unambi guousl y

por t r ayi ng hi s ret i r ement as i nvol unt ar y. When a cowor ker , Chr i s

Duquet t e, emai l ed hi m t hat day t o congr at ul at e hi m on hi s

r et i r ement , Ni ebauer r esponded, "Al l I have agr eed t o i s t o

consi der r et i r ement and l ook at t he number s t o see i f i t i s

possi bl e. " Ar ound t hat t i me, Ni ebauer al so appr oached Wi ckl i f f

( t he head of human r esour ces) t o t el l hi m t hat he had not deci ded

-9-



t o r et i r e and was not i n f act r et i r i ng. Wi ckl i f f r esponded t hat

Ni ebauer had i ndeed r esi gned, 6 and the CEO DeFal co had al r eady

accept ed hi s r esi gnat i on; i f he want ed hi s j ob back, he woul d have

t o consul t DeFal co.

DeFal co cal l ed Ni ebauer on December 16 t o t el l hi m t hat

t hat day woul d be hi s l ast worki ng day, but t hat he woul d be kept

on t he company payr ol l t hr ough t he end of J anuary. Wi ckl i f f sent

Ni ebauer a l et t er t o a si mi l ar ef f ect , whi ch Ni ebauer r ecei ved on

December 19. Fol l owi ng t he phone cal l wi t h DeFal co on December 16,

Ni ebauer memor i al i zed hi s di sagr eement i n a l et t er , sent t o DeFal co

by cer t i f i ed mai l , wr i t i ng, " I have not r esi gned f r om Cr ane & Co.

and . . . I have no pr esent i nt ent i on of r esi gni ng f r omCr ane & Co.

. . . [ T]he t er mi nat i on of my empl oyment at t hi s poi nt woul d be

consi der ed i nvol unt ar y under t he Execut i ve Sever ance Pl an. " He

cl ai med t hat t hi s was al l a mi sunder st andi ng ar i si ng out of t he

December 5 dr opped cal l and t hat he had never communi cat ed an

i nt ent t o r et i r e. Nonet hel ess, Cr ane shut of f Ni ebauer ' s emai l and

t el ephone access on December 16. Ni ebauer di d not t hereaf t er

r epor t t o wor k.

Ni ebauer f i l ed a cl ai m f or sever ance benef i t s under t he

pl an on Febr uar y 2, 2012, on t he gr ound of i nvol unt ar y ter mi nat i on.

The compensat i on commi t t ee — t he desi gnat ed pl an admi ni st r at or ,

6 Thi s opi ni on uses t he t er ms " r esi gn" and " r et i r e"i nt er changeabl y, as t he par t i es do i n t hei r br i ef i ng.

-10-



r esponsi bl e f or det er mi ni ng Ni ebauer ' s benef i t s el i gi bi l i t y —was

schedul ed t o meet on March 15, 2012. I n advance of t he meet i ng,

J ames Hacket t , gener al counsel of Cr ane, i nvest i gat ed Ni ebauer ' s

cl ai m. He r evi ewed Ni ebauer ' s emai l cor r espondence around t he t i me

of hi s depart ur e and spoke wi t h var i ous Cr ane empl oyees about t he

ci r cumst ances l eadi ng up t o t he depar t ur e, i ncl udi ng DeFal co,

Wi ckl i f f , Rowe, Kendal l , and Doug Cr ane, a Cr ane vi ce pr esi dent .

Wi t h t he hel p of Wi ckl i f f and out si de counsel , Hacket t cr eat ed a

one- page t i mel i ne of event s f r omNovember 2011 t o Febr uary 2012 t o

summar i ze the resul t s of hi s i nvest i gat i on.

At t he compensat i on commi t t ee meet i ng, Hacket t pr esent ed

t he t i mel i ne he had pr epared. 7 Ot her document s bef ore t he

commi t t ee i ncl uded a copy of t he pl an, cer t ai n emai l s t hat Ni ebauer

had sent i n December of 2011, 8 and Ni ebauer ' s appl i cat i on f or

benef i t s. 9 DeFal co, Wi ckl i f f , and Ki t t r edge al so pr ovi ded r el evant

i nf or mat i on t o t he commi t t ee or al l y. 10

7 Ni ebauer di d not at t end t he meet i ng, nor di d he request t oat t end.

8 Emai l s f r omNi ebauer t o Ri ch Rowe concer ni ng t r avel pl ans t o Texas, t o hi s daughter , t o Ri ck Kendal l , and t o Chr i s Duquet t e wer enot bef ore the commi t t ee.

9 At t he t i me of Ni ebauer ' s depar t ur e f r om Cr ane, human

r esour ces had det er mi ned t hat he was i nel i gi bl e f or sever ancebenef i t s under t he pl an and decl i ned t o pay t hemout . A summary of t hi s deci si on was al so bef ore the compensat i on commi t t ee.

10 Separ at el y f r omNi ebauer ' s cl ai mf or sever ance benef i t s, t hecommi t t ee al so consi dered t he i ssue of hi s " management i ncent i vecompensat i on, " awar di ng hi m a l ump sum of $3. 5 mi l l i on i nst ead of

-11-



The commi t t ee i ssued a wr i t t en summary of i t s deci si on on

May 2, 2012, out l i ni ng t he subst ance of Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m, r el evant

pl an pr ovi si ons, and the i nf or mat i on pr esent ed to t he commi t t ee.

I t s concl usi on was t o deny Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m f or benef i t s, gi ven

t hat he had "vol unt ar i l y el ect ed t o r esi gn hi s empl oyment " and

t her ef or e "was not el i gi bl e f or a sever ance benef i t pur suant t o t he

Pl an. " The wr i t t en deci si on al so not ed t hat , pur suant t o t he t er ms

of t he pl an, Ni ebauer was ent i t l ed t o f i l e an appeal wi t hi n si xt y

days.

Al t hough he had i ni t i al l y submi t t ed hi s cl ai m wi t hout

suppor t i ng document at i on, Ni ebauer ' s appeal of t he adver se

deci si on, f i l ed on J une 28, 2012, number ed al most sevent y pages i n

l engt h and cont ai ned a det ai l ed r ebut t al of Hacket t ' s t i mel i ne and

var i ous appended emai l s and document s. Ni ebauer ' s posi t i on was

t hat he had never announced an i nt ent t o r et i r e, and t hat Cr ane' s

bel i ef t o t he cont r ary was a mi sunderst andi ng; even t hough he had

at t empt ed t o cl ear up t he conf usi on, Cr ane di d not al l ow hi m t o

mai ntai n hi s empl oyment .

I n advance of t he August 24, 2012 compensat i on commi t t ee

meet i ng, members were pr ovi ded wi t h al l of t he document s t hat

Ni ebauer had submi t t ed i n suppor t of hi s appeal , i n addi t i on t o a

memorandumwr i t t en by Hacket t t hat i ncl uded, among ot her t hi ngs, an

expl anat i on of t he l egal aut hor i t i es ci t ed i n Ni ebauer ' s appeal and

a payout over t en year s.

-12-



copi es of cer t ai n r el evant emai l s, Hacket t ' s t i mel i ne of event s

cr eat ed f or t he f i r st meet i ng, and t he wr i t t en summar y of t he

i ni t i al deci si on t o deny benef i t s. At t he meet i ng, t he commi t t ee

unani mousl y vot ed t o deny Ni ebauer ' s appeal , on t he gr ound that he

had r esi gned hi s empl oyment wi t hout "good r eason" t o do so, as

def i ned i n t he pl an. The commi t t ee i ssued a wr i t t en summar y of i t s

deci si on on September 7, 2012.

On Oct ober 30, 2012, Ni ebauer f i l ed sui t i n t he di st r i ct

cour t agai nst Cr ane and t he Cr ane execut i ve sever ance pl an. Hi s

compl ai nt sought t o recover sever ance benef i t s al l egedl y due under

t he pl an, 29 U. S. C. § 1132( a) ( 1) ( B) , and al so pl eaded one count of

i nt er f er ence wi t h a pr ot ect ed r i ght . Speci f i cal l y, Ni ebauer

al l eged t hat Cr ane " t er mi nat ed [ hi s] empl oyment [ agai nst hi s wi l l ]

and t hen l abel ed i t as a r et i r ement i n or der t o depr i ve hi m of

sever ance pay and ot her benef i t s under t he Pl an, " t her eby

di scri mi nat i ng agai nst hi m f or t he pur pose of i nt er f er i ng wi t h a

pr ot ected r i ght , i n vi ol at i on of 29 U. S. C. § 1140. I n t ot al ,

Ni ebauer sought $1, 169, 484 i n damages, pl us at t orney' s f ees and

cost s. That amount i ncl uded $855, 920 i n sever ance benef i t s, $5000

f or r ei mbur sement of heal t h i nsurance pr emi ums, and $308, 564 i n

back pay.

Af t er or der i ng addi t i onal di scover y t o f i l l i n gaps i n

t he admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he

def endant s' mot i on f or summary j udgment . The cour t hel d t hat t he

-13-



commi t t ee' s deci si on t o deny Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m f or benef i t s was

nei t her ar bi t r ar y nor capr i ci ous and was suppor t ed by subst ant i al

evi dence. The cour t f ur t her hel d t hat because Ni ebauer coul d not

est abl i sh t hat he had suf f er ed an adver se empl oyment act i on, he

coul d not make out a pr i ma f aci e case of i nt er f er ence wi t h a

pr ot ect ed r i ght . Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

II. Analysis

On appeal , Ni ebauer argues t hat t he compensat i on

commi t t ee' s deci si on t o deny hi s cl ai m f or sever ance benef i t s was

t ai nt ed by a conf l i ct of i nt er est as wel l as pr ocedur al er r or s, and

was not suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence. He al so asser t s that

t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y gr ant ed summar y j udgment t o t he

def endant s on t he i nt er f er ence cl ai m. We addr ess t hese i ssues i n

t ur n, but f i r st di scuss t he appl i cabl e st andar d of r evi ew, whi ch

t he par t i es di sput e.

A. St andar d of revi ew

I n gener al , wher e an ERI SA pl an del egat es t o the pl an

admi ni st r at or t he di scr et i on t o const r ue t he pl an and det er mi ne

el i gi bi l i t y f or benef i t s under i t s pr ovi si ons, a deci si on made

under t he pl an wi l l be uphel d unl ess i t was "arbi t r ar y, capr i ci ous,

or an abuse of di scr et i on. " Cusson v. Li ber t y Li f e Assurance Co.

of Bos. , 592 F. 3d 215, 224 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . Under t hi s st andar d, a r evi ewi ng cour t "asks

whet her a pl an admi ni st r at or ' s det er mi nat i on i s pl ausi bl e i n l i ght

-14-



of t he r ecor d as a whol e, or , put anot her way, whet her t he deci si on

i s suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d. " Col by v.

Uni on Sec. I ns. Co. & Mgmt . Co. f or Merr i mack Anest hesi a Assocs.

Long Ter m Di sabi l i t y Pl an, 705 F. 3d 58, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Because we r evi ew t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s summary j udgment deci si on de novo, we, t oo, appl y a

def er ent i al st andar d t o t he pl an admi ni st r at or ' s deci si on. Leahy

v. Raytheon Co. , 315 F. 3d 11, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

Ni ebauer ar gues agai nst such def er ent i al r evi ew by

poi nt i ng out t hat t he pl an at i ssue i s a " t op hat pl an" and ur ges

us t o f ol l ow t he appr oach of t he Thi r d and Ei ght h Ci r cui t s, whi ch

have hel d that de novo revi ew appl i es t o deci si ons made under t op

hat pl ans. See Cr ai g v. Pi l l sbur y Non- Qual i f i ed Pensi on Pl an, 458

F. 3d 748, 752 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hat " [ t ] op hat pl ans shoul d

be t r eat ed as uni l at er al cont r act s and r evi ewed i n accor dance wi t h

or di nar y cont r act pr i nci pl es" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ;

Gol dst ei n v. J ohnson & J ohnson, 251 F. 3d 433, 443 (3d Ci r . 2001)

( same) ; see al so McCart hy v. Commerce Gr p. , I nc. , 831 F. Supp. 2d

459, 480 ( D. Mass. 2011) ( not i ng ci r cui t spl i t r egar di ng whet her de

novo or ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous st andar d of r evi ew appl i es t o top

hat pl ans gener al l y) .

Under ERI SA, a top hat pl an i s " any ' pl an whi ch i s

unf unded and i s mai nt ai ned by an empl oyer pr i mar i l y f or t he pur pose

of provi di ng def er r ed compensat i on f or a sel ect gr oup of management

-15-



or hi ghl y compensat ed empl oyees. ' " Al exander v. Br i gham& Women' s

Physi ci ans Or g. , I nc. , 513 F. 3d 37, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng 29

U. S. C. § 1051( 2) ) . The par t i es agr ee t hat t he pl an at i ssue i s a

t op hat one.

We decl i ne to deci de whether t op hat pl ans ar e

cat egor i cal l y subj ect t o de novo r evi ew because, as Cr ane observes,

" [ e] ven t he Ci r cui t cour t s t hat have revi ewed t op hat deci si ons

under ' or di nar y cont r act pr i nci pl es' . . . have not ed t hat i t i s a

di st i nct i on wi t hout a di f f er ence wher e, as her e, t he pl an gr ant s

t he admi ni st r at or di scr et i on t o i nt er pr et t he pl an. " Bot h t he

Thi r d and Ei ght h Ci r cui t cases upon whi ch Ni ebauer r el i es

ul t i mat el y revi ewed deci si ons under t op hat pl ans s i mpl y f or

r easonabl eness. See Cr ai g, 458 F. 3d at 752; Gol dst ei n, 251 F. 3d at

444. Those cour t s r easoned t hat a pl an' s gr ant of di scr et i on t o an

admi ni st r at or must be gi ven ef f ect as cont r act pr i nci pl es woul d

or di nar i l y r equi r e: "wher e one par t y i s gr ant ed di scr et i on under

t he t er ms of t he cont r act , t hat di scr et i on must be exer ci sed i n

good f ai t h — a r equi r ement t hat i ncl udes t he dut y to exer ci se t he

di scr et i on r easonabl y. " Cr ai g, 458 F. 3d at 752 ( quot i ng Gol dst ei n,

251 F. 3d at 444) . As "r easonabl eness i s t he basi c touchst one i n

al l benef i t - deni al cases, " Denmar k v. Li ber t y Li f e Assur ance Co. of

Bos. , 566 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) , we appl y our t ypi cal def er ent i al st andar d of r evi ew her e.

I n r el i ance on Hanni ngt on v. Sun Li f e & Heal t h I nsurance

-16-



Co. , 711 F. 3d 226, 230–32 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , Ni ebauer ar gues i n t he

al t er nat i ve t hat de novo r evi ew i s mandat ed under t hi s Ci r cui t ' s

pr ecedent wher e a pl an admi ni st r at or i nt er pr et s mat er i al out si de

t he pl an. Ni ebauer mai nt ai ns t hat t he compensat i on commi t t ee here

" i nt er pr et ed emai l s and ot her document s t o r each i t s concl usi on. "

Those i nter pret at i ons of non- pl an document s, t he ar gument goes, ar e

not ent i t l ed t o def er ence.

Hanni ngt on i s i napposi t e. I n t hat case, a pl an

admi ni st r at or r el i ed on a pr ovi si on of t he Vet er ans' Benef i t s Act

t o reduce t he benef i t s due under a pl an t o a cl ai mant , wher e that

cl ai mant was al so r ecei vi ng ser vi ce- r el at ed di sabi l i t y compensat i on

under t he st atut e. 711 F. 3d at 229, 231–32. We r evi ewed t he pl an

admi ni st r at or ' s const r uct i on of t he st at ut e de novo, hol di ng t hat

t he admi ni st r at or onl y had di scret i on t o i nt er pr et t he pl an' s

pr ovi si ons and t hat def er ence i s i nappr opr i at e "when t he pl an

f i duci ar y i s r equi r ed, i n t he cour se of det er mi ni ng t he meani ng of

t he pl an l anguage, t o i nt er pr et mat er i al out si de t he pl an. " I d. at

230; see al so Cof f i n v. Bowat er I nc. , 501 F. 3d 80, 85 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ( r evi ewi ng de novo pl an admi ni st r at or ' s i nt er pr et at i on of

st ock pur chase agr eement t hat al l egedl y t er mi nat ed pl an' s

obl i gat i ons t o subsi di ar y' s wor ker s af t er sal e of subsi di ar y) .

Her e, by cont r ast , t he non- pl an mat er i al at i ssue i s

emai l cor r espondence, not document s cr eat i ng or al t er i ng l egal

obl i gat i ons such as st at ut es or cont r act s. The emai l s t hat t he

-17-



compensat i on commi t t ee consi dered, wherei n Ni ebauer di scussed hi s

r et i r ement f r omCr ane, do not bear on t he l egal def i ni t i on of pl an

t er ms. Rat her , t hey pr ovi de per t i nent backgr ound, a basi s f or

assessi ng whet her t he f act ual pr edi cat e of t he pl an' s pr ovi si ons

has been t r i gger ed. Si mpl e f act - gat her i ng cannot di spl ace t he

def erence owed t o a pl an admi ni st r ator . We t hus pr oceed under t he

r ubr i c of ar bi t r ar y- and- capr i ci ous r evi ew.

B. Conf l i ct of i nt er est

Ni ebauer argues t hat t he compensat i on commi t t ee' s

deci si on t o deny hi mbenef i t s was i r r epar abl y t ai nt ed by a conf l i ct

of i nt er est , poi nt i ng out t hat t he exi st ence of such a conf l i ct i s

one f act or t hat may j ust i f y the concl usi on t hat a pl an

admi ni st r at or ' s deci si on was ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous. See Met r o.

Li f e I ns. Co. v. Gl enn, 554 U. S. 105, 116–17 ( 2008) ; Denmar k, 566

F. 3d at 8. I n par t i cul ar , he asser t s t hat t he commi t t ee was bi ased

by i t s concern wi t h t he ongoi ng pr obl ems pl agui ng t he BEP cont r act

and wi t h Ni ebauer ' s i nt egr al r ol e i n amel i or at i ng t hose pr obl ems,

t hus pr ecl udi ng i t f r om i mpar t i al l y deci di ng Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m f or

sever ance benef i t s. I n ot her wor ds, Ni ebauer mai nt ai ns that t he

commi t t ee was so f r ust r ated wi t h the i mpendi ng l oss of t he most

i mport ant st af f member ( hi m) on Cr ane' s most i mport ant pr oj ect t hat

i t deni ed hi s cl ai m f or benef i t s t o spi t e hi m.

Thi s ar gument si t s i n t ensi on wi t h Ni ebauer ' s overal l

t heor y of t he case. As t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved,

-18-



[ Ni ebauer] seems t o suggest t hat hi s absencewas goi ng t o damage [ Pr oj ect Momentum] andt hat Def endant s want ed t o penal i ze hi mbecauset hey wer e angr y at hi s deci si on t o l eave t hecompany at a sensi t i ve t i me. [ Ni ebauer ] al sost r ongl y cont ends, however , t hat he never

deci ded t o l eave, t hat Def endant s knew hewant ed t o cont i nue hi s empl oyment , and t hatt hey never t hel ess ar bi t r ar i l y t er mi nat ed hi mi nvol unt ar i l y, appar ent l y despi t e t he negat i vei mpact on t he Proj ect .

Ni ebauer , 44 F. Supp. 3d at 162. Thus, i f i t i s t r ue t hat t he

commi t t ee was so resent f ul of Ni ebauer ' s i l l - t i med depar t ur e t hat

i t s j udgment was i mpai r ed as t o hi s sever ance cl ai m, i t i s

i mpl ausi bl e t hat Cr ane woul d have t er mi nat ed hi m i n t he f i r st

i nst ance, as he cl ai ms.

But even l eavi ng asi de any i nt er nal i nconsi st ency i n hi s

posi t i on, Ni ebauer does not i dent i f y an act ual conf l i ct of

i nt er est . The par adi gmat i c conf l i ct of i nt er est i n ERI SA cases

occur s when t he same ent i t y i s r esponsi bl e f or "bot h det er mi n[ i ng]

whet her an empl oyee i s el i gi bl e f or benef i t s and pay[ i ng] benef i t s

out of i t s own pocket . " 11 Gl enn, 554 U. S. at 108. I n such cases,

t he pl an admi ni st r at or ' s f i nanci al st ake i n t he out come act s as a

di si ncent i ve t o awar d benef i t s. Her e, t hough, t he success of

Pr oj ect Moment umi n no way depended on t he compensat i on commi t t ee' s

deci si on on Ni ebauer ' s cl ai mf or sever ance benef i t s. What ever t he

11 Bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , Cr ane conceded t he exi st ence of such a st r uct ur al conf l i ct , al bei t one t hat was de mi ni mi s i nnat ur e. Ni ebauer , however , does not pr ess a st r uct ur al - conf l i ctar gument on appeal .

-19-



commi t t ee members t hought about t he ef f ect of Ni ebauer ' s depart ur e

on Proj ect Moment um, t he deci si on t o award benef i t s woul d not

i mpact t he pr oj ect ei t her way. Rat her t han conf l i ct of i nt er est ,

Ni ebauer ' s ar gument on t hi s scor e sounds i n r et al i at i on — a cl ai m

t hat he has al so r ai sed i ndependent l y and t hat we addr ess bel ow.

C. Cl ai med pr ocedur al er r or s

We next t ur n t o Ni ebauer ' s cont ent i on t hat t he

compensat i on commi t t ee' s deci si on was pr ocedur al l y f l awed. He

r ai ses t wo ar gument s t o but t r ess t hi s cl ai m: f i r st , t hat t he

deci si on r el i ed on an i ncompl et e f act ual r ecor d, and second, t hat

t he commi t t ee' s t r ansmi ssi on of i t s deci si on t o Ni ebauer f ai l ed t o

compl y wi t h ERI SA' s not i ce r equi r ement s, 29 U. S. C. § 1133. We

addr ess each i n t ur n.

1. Whet her t he commi t t ee' s deci s i on r el i ed on ani ncompl et e f act ual r ecor d

Ni ebauer f aul t s t he commi t t ee f or r el yi ng on an

" i naccur at e and i ncompl et e" r ecor d i n r ender i ng i t s deci si on. He

poi nt s t o t wo cat egor i es of er r or s t hat , i n hi s vi ew, under mi ne t he

l egi t i macy of t he commi t t ee' s f i nal deci si on: f i r st , he ar gues t hat

t he commi t t ee i nappr opr i at el y rel i ed on t he one- si ded t i mel i ne of

event s pr epared by Hacket t , t he general counsel . He goes on t o

cont end t hat Hacket t "wi t hhel d" cer t ai n document s f r om t he

commi t t ee t hat suppor t ed Ni ebauer ' s posi t i on, such as var i ous

emai l s and per sonnel f i l es.

-20-



We do not agr ee t hat t here was anyt hi ng i mpr oper i n t he

cont ent or scope of t he mat er i al s t hat t he commi t t ee consi der ed.

As an i ni t i al mat t er , i t was ent i r el y appr opr i at e f or t he commi t t ee

t o rel y on mat er i al s submi t t ed by Cr ane; i ndeed, t he pl an

cont empl at es t hat t he commi t t ee wi l l do j ust t hat , by maki ng

el i gi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons " on t he basi s of i nf or mat i on suppl i ed t o

i t by t he Empl oyer . " And whi l e a pl an admi ni st r ator may not r el y

on evi dence t hat i t knows or has r eason t o know i s mi sl eadi ng,

Buf f onge v. Pr udent i al I ns. Co. of Am. , 426 F. 3d 20, 30 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) , t hat i s not what happened her e. The t i mel i ne, f ar f r om

bei ng "undi sput edl y f al se, " as Ni ebauer asser t s, was a r easonabl e

synt hesi s of a convol ut ed ser i es of event s, whi ch hewed t o t he

avai l abl e evi dence. For exampl e, al t hough Ni ebauer cl ai ms t hat t he

t i mel i ne f al sel y repr esent ed t hat he agr eed t o a Febr uar y 1, 2012

r et i r ement dat e, t hat r epr esent at i on i s a f ai r r eadi ng of a

December 8, 2011 emai l t o Ri ck Kendal l on t he topi c of r et i r ement

cal cul at i ons i n whi ch Ni ebauer wr ot e, "[ I ] t hi nk Febr uar y 1st wi l l

wor k. "

We al so r esi st Ni ebauer ' s i mput at i on of bad f ai t h t o

Hacket t i n hi s management of t he i nvest i gat i on. Ni ebauer ar gues

t hat Hacket t kept cer t ai n r ecords f r om t he commi t t ee because they

suppor t ed Ni ebauer ' s posi t i on. I n par t i cul ar , Ni ebauer poi nt s t o

emai l s bet ween hi m and Kendal l about r et i r ement cal cul at i ons;

emai l s bet ween hi m and coworker Chr i s Duquet t e i n whi ch Ni ebauer

-21-



r ebuf f ed congr at ul at i ons on hi s r et i r ement , st at i ng t hat he had not

act ual l y r et i r ed; as wel l as a document i n hi s per sonnel f i l e whi ch

l i st ed t he r eason f or Ni ebauer ' s depar t ur e as "Ret i r ed —

I nvol unt ar y. " 12 Hacket t t est i f i ed at hi s deposi t i on t hat , i n

assembl i ng mat er i al s f or t he commi t t ee t o revi ew, he "l ook[ ed] f or

any e- mai l s t hat wer e r el evant on t he t opi c [ of Ni ebauer ' s

depar t ur e] i n ei t her di r ect i on, " mi ndf ul of t he commi t t ee' s

"f i duci ar y dut i es t o get al l t he f act s and t o l ook at t hi s t hi ng i n

good f ai t h. " Hacket t st at ed t hat he t ur ned over t o t he commi t t ee

al l emai l s, sent dur i ng t he r el evant t i me per i od, t hat he deemed

r el evant t o Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m. Ni ebauer does not of f er any r eason

t o di scredi t t hi s t est i mony.

Ni ebauer ar gues t hat , as a resul t of t hese supposed

i naccur aci es and omi ss i ons, t he commi t t ee was under t he mi st aken

i mpr essi on t hat he had at l east at one poi nt deci ded t o r et i r e,

bef or e ul t i mat el y changi ng hi s mi nd. But deposi t i on t est i mony

makes cl ear t hat t he commi t t ee members underst ood t hat Ni ebauer ' s

posi t i on was t hat he had not announced an i nt ent t o r et i r e dur i ng

t he i ni t i al December 5 cal l wi t h St ephen DeFal co. I n ot her wor ds,

12 An af f i davi t f r omt he Cr ane benef i t s speci al i st who pr epar edt he f or m, Gai l Rondeau, demonst r at es t hat t he desi gnat i on "Ret i r ed

—I nvol unt ar y" was not i nt ended t o be an of f i ci al pr onouncement ont he r eason f or Ni ebauer ' s depar t ur e f r om t he company. Rondeauaver r ed t hat , i n f i l l i ng out t he el ect r oni c f or m, she si mpl y usedt he r eason t hat Ni ebauer had pr ovi ded, and t hat she "underst oodt hat t he desi gnat i on i n t he comput er pr ogr amwas i r r el evant f or anypur pose besi des t he Human Resour ces Depar t ment ' s admi ni st r at i vet er mi nat i on of Ni ebauer ' s enr ol l ment i n var i ous benef i t s pr ogr ams. "

-22-



t hey under st ood t hat Hacket t ' s t i mel i ne di d not al i gn wi t h

Ni ebauer ' s st ance. Cer t ai nl y, i f t hey wer e not awar e of Ni ebauer ' s

posi t i on when t he i ssue was consi der ed at t he f i r st meet i ng, t hey

wer e by t he t i me they deci ded hi s appeal , whi ch of f er ed a "poi nt -

by- poi nt r ef ut at i on" of t he t i mel i ne, Ni ebauer , 44 F. Supp. 3d at

158, and al so pr ovi ded copi es of t he al l egedl y wi t hhel d Kendal l

emai l s. I t i s t hi s f i nal deci si on t hat car r i es wei ght . Ter r y v.

Bayer Cor p. , 145 F. 3d 28, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

Al t hough Ni ebauer now argues t hat t he appeal was

necessar i l y i ncompl ete because i t was pr epared once he no l onger

had access t o hi s Cr ane emai l account , he noted at t he t i me t hat he

had i nt ent i onal l y pr esent ed hi s ver si on of event s i n exhaust i ve

det ai l so as t o gi ve t he commi t t ee f ul l cont ext f or hi s ar gument s.

He does not now expl ai n how t he handf ul of document s t hat were

unavai l abl e t o hi m at t he t i me he f i l ed hi s appeal woul d have

mat er i al l y st r engt hened hi s pr esent at i on of hi s posi t i on t o t he

commi t t ee. As t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded, " [ t ] he appeal s pr ocess

pr ot ect ed agai nst pot ent i al bi as on t he par t of Hacket t by al l owi ng

[ Ni ebauer ] t o pr esent hi s unf i l t er ed per spect i ve t o t he

Compensat i on Commi t t ee. " Ni ebauer , 44 F. Supp. 3d at 165. Thus,

even i f t he f act ual r ecor d under gi r di ng t he commi t t ee' s i ni t i al

deci si on was i ncompl ete i n some way, i t was adequatel y suppl ement ed

by Ni ebauer ' s appeal .

-23-



2. Whet her t he commi t t ee compl i ed wi t h 29 U. S. C.§ 1133

Ni ebauer next argues t hat t he commi t t ee f ai l ed t o compl y

wi t h ERI SA' s not i ce pr ovi si on, whi ch r equi r es pl an admi ni st r at or s

t o "pr ovi de adequat e not i ce i n wr i t i ng t o any par t i ci pant or

benef i ci ar y whose cl ai m f or benef i t s under t he pl an has been

deni ed, set t i ng f or t h t he speci f i c r easons f or such deni al , wr i t t en

i n a manner cal cul at ed t o be under st ood by t he par t i ci pant . " 29

U. S. C. § 1133( 1) ; see 29 C. F. R. § 2560. 503–1 ( set t i ng f or t h

i mpl ement i ng r egul at i ons) . Pl an benef i ci ar i es whose cl ai ms have

been deni ed ar e f ur t her ent i t l ed t o "a r easonabl e oppor t uni t y . . .

f or a f ul l and f ai r r evi ew by the appr opr i at e named f i duci ar y of

t he deci si on denyi ng t he cl ai m. " 29 U. S. C. § 1133( 2) . Rel yi ng on

t hese pr ovi si ons — i n par t i cul ar § 1133( 1) — Ni ebauer ar gues t hat

t he not i ce of t he compensat i on commi t t ee' s f i nal deci si on on hi s

appeal was i nadequat e.

The not i ce r equi r ement s of ERI SA ar e desi gned t o " i nsur e

t hat when a cl ai mant appeal s a deni al t o t he pl an admi ni st r at or ,

[ he] wi l l be abl e to addr ess t he det er mi nat i ve i ssues and have a

f ai r chance t o pr esent [ hi s] case. " Di Gr egor i o v. Har t f or d

Compr ehensi ve Emp. Benef i t Ser v. Co. , 423 F. 3d 6, 14 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) ( quot i ng Hal pi n v. W. W. Gr ai nger , I nc. , 962 F. 2d 685, 689

( 7t h Ci r . 1992) ) . Thi s pur pose i s t he l odest ar i n det er mi ni ng

whet her t her e has been subst ant i al compl i ance wi t h t he not i ce

pr ovi si ons; st r i ct compl i ance i s not r equi r ed. See Ter r y, 145 F. 3d

-24-



at 39. I n assessi ng a not i ce- based chal l enge, we ask whet her " t he

benef i ci ar y [ was] suppl i ed wi t h a st at ement of r easons t hat , under

t he ci r cumst ances of t he case, per mi t t ed a suf f i ci ent l y cl ear

under st andi ng of t he admi ni st r at or ' s posi t i on t o per mi t ef f ect i ve

r evi ew. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . A cl ai mant

t ypi cal l y must demonst r at e t hat he or she has been pr ej udi ced as a

r esul t of t he not i ce' s i nadequacy. Bar d v. Bos. Shi ppi ng Ass' n,

471 F. 3d 229, 240–41 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Her e, Ni ebauer compl ai ns t hat not i ce of t he commi t t ee' s

f i nal deci si on was i nadequat e because i t f ai l ed t o pr ovi de speci f i c

r easons. But al t hough Ni ebauer cl ai ms t hat " [ t ] he ent i r et y of t he

Commi t t ee' s deci si on on the appeal [ was] cont ai ned i n two

sent ences, " t he t wo- page memor andum at i ssue i n f act pr ovi ded a

pr ocedur al and f act ual backgr ound, i n addi t i on t o a descr i pt i on of

t he rel evant pr ovi si ons of t he pl an and t he i nf or mat i on t he

commi t t ee consi der ed i n ar r i vi ng at i t s deci si on, bef or e

summari zi ng i t s concl usi on. At t he end of t he memo, t he commi t t ee

encapsul at ed i t s deci si on as f ol l ows:

Af t er consi der i ng and di scussi ng t hei nf ormat i on pr esent ed, t he Commi t t ee concl udedt hat [ Ni ebauer ] had i n f act el ect ed t o r esi gnhi s empl oyment r ather t han cont i nue to work i nsuppor t of t he Cr ane & Co. pr oj ect t o whi ch he

had been assi gned and f ur t her t hat hi sr esi gnat i on was not f or good r eason as t hatt er m i s descr i bed i n t he Sever ance Pl an. SeeAr t i cl e 2, Sect i ons 2. 10 and 2. 16. Ther ef or e[ Ni ebauer ' s] appeal i s deni ed.

-25-



Thi s expl anat i on, whi ch cl ear l y out l i nes t he r eason f or t he

commi t t ee' s deci si on, sat i sf i es ERI SA' s not i ce r equi r ement s. See

Or ndor f v. Paul Rever e Li f e I ns. Co. , 404 F. 3d 510, 526 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) ( "The deni al l et t er need not det ai l ever y bi t of i nf or mat i on

i n t he record . . . . " ) .

I n any event , t he not i ce of t he commi t t ee' s i ni t i al

deci si on, wi t h whi ch ERI SA' s not i ce pr ovi si ons ar e pr i mar i l y

concer ned, was adequat e t o per mi t ef f ect i ve r evi ew of Ni ebauer ' s

cl ai m. As Cr ane obser ves, i t i s undi sput ed t hat t he key i ssue

bef ore the commi t t ee was whet her Ni ebauer had r esi gned or i nst ead

had been i nvol unt ar i l y t ermi nated. Ni ebauer was undeni abl y aware

t hat t hi s quest i on was di sposi t i ve of hi s cl ai m; i ndeed, af t er

r ecei vi ng not i ce of t he commi t t ee' s i ni t i al deci si on, 13 he submi t t ed

an appeal wi t h sevent y pages of support i ng document at i on, addr essed

t o t he pr eci se i ssue of whet her he had r et i r ed, or whet her , i n hi s

par l ance, he "was r et i r ed" agai nst hi s wi l l . Af t er consi der i ng t he

document s t hat he submi t t ed, t he commi t t ee uphel d i t s ear l i er

deci si on on t he same gr ounds. As such, Ni ebauer has no cr edi bl e

cl ai m t hat hi s under st andi ng of t he i ssues at st ake was so muddl ed

as t o i nhi bi t ef f ect i ve r evi ew. 14 Compare Ter r y, 145 F. 3d at 39

13 As di scussed above, t hi s not i ce advi sed Ni ebauer of t hecommi t t ee' s concl usi on t hat he, "a val ued seni or execut i ve, hadvol unt ar i l y el ect ed t o r esi gn hi s empl oyment , and t hat t her ef or e hewas not el i gi bl e f or a sever ance benef i t pur suant t o t he Pl an. "

14 Ni ebauer al so ar gues t hat t he i nadequacy of t he not i ce i smani f est ed i n i t s i ncor r ect r ef er ence t o sect i on 2. 10 of t he pl an,

-26-



( wher e cl ai mant submi t t ed addi t i onal i nf or mat i on t o commi t t ee t hat

di r ect l y addr essed whet her he was di sabl ed f r om per f or mi ng "any"

j ob, " [ h] i s act i ons demonst r at e[ d] t hat he was wel l awar e of t he

r easons f or t he deci si on, and was submi t t i ng addi t i onal evi dence on

t he cr uci al poi nt " ) , wi t h Bar d, 471 F. 3d at 241 ( wher e

admi ni st r at or pr ovi ded no not i ce of deni al , cl ai mant was not

" i nf or med t hat he needed t o show t hat hi s t ot al di sabi l i t y occur r ed

pr i or t o t er mi nat i on of hi s empl oyment , [ and accor di ngl y] submi t t ed

medi cal document at i on not meant t o addr ess t hat poi nt . . . whi ch

ul t i mat el y pr oved qui t e har mf ul t o hi s admi ni st r at i ve appeal " ) .

D. Subst ant i al evi dence

As not ed above, wher e t he pl an conf er s admi ni st r at i ve and

i nt er pr et i ve di scret i on upon t he admi ni st r at or , we revi ew

subst ant i ve chal l enges t o deci si ons made under t he pl an f or an

abuse of di scr et i on. Cusson, 592 F. 3d at 224. To pass must er ,

admi ni st r ators' determi nat i ons "must be r easoned and support ed by

subst ant i al evi dence. " Col by, 705 F. 3d at 62 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . "Evi dence i s deemed subst ant i al when i t i s

r easonabl y suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a concl usi on. " Or t ega- Candel ar i a

v. J ohnson & J ohnson, 755 F. 3d 13, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal

whi ch det ai l s t he var i ous "di squal i f yi ng event [ s] " t hat const i t ut egr ounds f or denyi ng benef i t s. Even t hough sect i on 2. 10 i s not ati ssue i n t hi s case, t he er r ant ci t at i on t o t hat pr ovi si on does notunder mi ne our concl usi on that Ni ebauer —who recei ved not i ce of t hecommi t t t ee' s i ni t i al deci si on t hat r ef er r ed t o t he pr oper sect i onsof t he pl an— had a suf f i ci ent l y cl ear under st andi ng of t hecommi t t ee' s posi t i on i n or der t o per mi t ef f ect i ve r evi ew.

-27-



quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thus, t he quest i on bef or e us i s not

whi ch si de i s r i ght , but whet her t he compensat i on commi t t ee' s

deci si on t o deny Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m f or sever ance benef i t s was

r easonabl e on t he r ecor d bef or e i t . See i d.

Ni ebauer woul d have us answer i n t he negat i ve.

Essent i al l y, hi s posi t i on i s t hat t he evi dence demonst r at es t hat he

never expr essed an i nt ent t o r et i r e — on t he December 5 cal l wi t h

DeFal co or ot her wi se. Accor di ngl y, he ar gues, hi s depar t ur e f r om

Cr ane was t he r esul t of an i nvol unt ar y t er mi nat i on, as evi denced by

Cr ane' s uni l at er al sel ect i on of hi s l ast day of wor k. He cont ends

t hat t he commi t t ee f ai l ed t o consi der hi s posi t i on at al l and

i nst ead accept ed DeFal co' s ver si on of event s uncr i t i cal l y.

Ni ebauer ' s cl ai m t hat he never expr essed an i nt ent t o

r et i r e i s bel i ed by t he admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d. The commi t t ee had

bef or e i t ampl e evi dence that Ni ebauer announced hi s r et i r ement t o

var i ous par t i es on and ar ound December 5, 2011. I n par t i cul ar ,

even t hough t here i s no r ecor d of t he di sput ed December 5 cal l ,

cont emporaneous emai l s show t hat both DeFal co and Ni ebauer r el ayed

t o ot her s t hat Ni ebauer deci ded t o r et i r e t hat day, ef f ect i ve

i mmedi at el y. I n t he t went y- f our hour s af t er t he cal l , bot h DeFal co

and Ni ebauer i ndependent l y conf i r med t he ret i r ement announcement t o

var i ous t hi r d par t i es; Ni ebauer ' s wi f e wr ot e i n an emai l t o hi m,

"Sounds l i ke you t ol d [ DeFal co] t hat r et i r ement i s r out e, " and he

l at er t ol d her t hat "sever ance i s ver y unl i kel y based on t he

-28-



t r i gger i ng event s . . . . [ I ] t hi nk we ki ss t he sever ance opt i on

good bye. "

Fur t her mor e, t her e i s subst ant i al evi dence t hat , beyond

si mpl y t al ki ng about t he r et i r ement , bot h par t i es t ook st eps t o

ef f ect uat e Ni ebauer ' s st at ed i nt ent af t er December 5. DeFal co l ef t

Ni ebauer ' s name of f t he announcement of t he Pr oj ect Moment umt eam,

and Ni ebauer st opped at t endi ng t eam meet i ngs t her eaf t er . The

commi t t ee consi dered evi dence t hat Ni ebauer consul t ed wi t h t wo

di f f er ent Cr ane empl oyees about r et i r ement l ogi st i cs and al so began

di scussi ng pl ans f or a r et i r ement par t y. He openl y t al ked about

hi s pendi ng r et i r ement wi t h hi s cowor ker s and wi f e.

I n t he f ace of al l t hi s evi dence, t he commi t t ee was

ent i t l ed t o vi ew Ni ebauer ' s bel at ed di savowal of hi s r et i r ement i n

t he December 16 l et t er t o DeFal co — el even days af t er hi s i ni t i al

announcement — as a speci ous at t empt t o col l ect sever ance. See

Gannon v. Met r o. Li f e I ns. Co. , 360 F. 3d 211, 216 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)

( hol di ng t hat i t i s wi t hi n pl an admi ni st r at or ' s di scret i on t o wei gh

compet i ng evi dence) . Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y so wher e Ni ebauer ' s

l et t er mai nt ai ned t hat he had never r esol ved t o ret i r e, wi t hout

acknowl edgi ng t hat hi s ear l i er conduct may have evi nced a cont r ary

i nt ent . 15 And whi l e Ni ebauer compl ai ns t hat t he commi t t ee f ai l ed

15 We not e that i t i s uncl ear f r om t he recor d how a deci si ont o r et i r e i s of f i ci al l y f i nal i zed at Cr ane. But we do not vi ewt hi s ambi gui t y as under cut t i ng t he subst ant i al evi dent i ar y gr oundsf or t he commi t t ee' s deci si on, par t i cul ar l y wher e t he commi t t eeconsi dered evi dence that Ni ebauer had announced hi s i nt ent t o

-29-



t o consi der hi s account of t he December 5 dr opped cal l , i ncl udi ng

hi s cl ai m of mi scommuni cat i on, t he recor d r ef l ect s t he opposi t e.

As t he chai r man of t he compensat i on commi t t ee t est i f i ed at hi s

deposi t i on, "Cer t ai nl y ther e was wei ght appl i ed t o t he cl ai mon Mr .

Ni ebauer ' s par t t hat t her e was some conf usi on, but t he ot her

evi dence that we had . . . support ed so much t he ret i r e[ment ]

deci si on t hat we credi t ed i t f ai r l y si gni f i cant l y. " The commi t t ee

t hus appr opr i at el y di schar ged i t s "r esponsi bi l i t y . . . t o wei gh

conf l i ct i ng evi dence. " Vl ass v. Rayt heon Emps. Di sabi l i t y Tr ust ,

244 F. 3d 27, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

Ni ebauer devot es si gni f i cant at t ent i on t o pr ovi di ng hi s

perspect i ve on t he emai l s upon whi ch t he commi t t ee r el i ed wherei n

he di scussed hi s r et i r ement wi t h var i ous peopl e. For exampl e,

Ni ebauer asser t s t hat t he December 6 emai l t o Rowe i n whi ch he

ment i oned hi s "pendi ng r et i r ement , " "does not suggest t hat he i n

f act vol unt ar i l y ret i r ed, " but si mpl y reveal s t hat he had been

"speci f i cal l y i nst r uct ed t o r ef er t o i t i n t hat manner . " But t hese

al t er nat i ve expl anat i ons cannot under mi ne t he subst ant i al

evi dent i ar y basi s f or t he commi t t ee' s deci si on t hat Ni ebauer had

vol unt ar i l y r et i r ed and was t hus i nel i gi bl e f or sever ance benef i t s.

"[ I ] n t he pr esence of conf l i cti ng evi dence, i t i s ent i r el y

appr opr i at e f or a revi ewi ng cour t t o uphol d t he deci si on of t he

r et i r e "ef f ect i ve i mmedi at el y. "

-30-



ent i t y ent i t l ed t o exer ci se i t s di scr et i on, " Gannon, 360 F. 3d at

216, and we accor di ngl y af f i r m t he commi t t ee' s deci si on her e.

E. I nt er f er ence wi t h pr ot ect ed r i ght s

I n t he second count of hi s compl ai nt , Ni ebauer has

al l eged t hat Cr ane i mper mi ssi bl y i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s pr ot ect ed

r i ght s under t he pl an, as pr oscr i bed by 29 U. S. C. § 1140.

Speci f i cal l y, Ni ebauer ar gues t hat "Cr ane i nvol unt ar i l y t er mi nat ed

[ hi s] empl oyment and t hen l abel ed i t as r et i r ement i n or der t o

depr i ve hi m of sever ance pay and ot her benef i t s under t he Pl an, "

even though he "r epeat edl y t ol d Cr ane that he was not r et i r i ng and

di d not i nt end t o r et i r e. "

The di st r i ct cour t ' s anal ysi s of t hi s count r el i ed on t he

"subst ant i al evi dence" st andar d appl i cabl e t o assessi ng deni al - of -

benef i t s cl ai ms under ERI SA. The cour t hel d t hat

Rul e 56 cannot be used . . . t o creat e an endr un ar ound t he "subst ant i al evi dence" r ul e i nan ERI SA case. Because Def endants'det er mi nat i on t hat he r et i r ed, and was noti nvol unt ar i l y t er mi nat ed, was suppor t ed bysubst ant i al evi dence, he cannot cl ai m t hat hesuf f ered an adver se empl oyment act i onsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a cl ai munder [ 29 U. S. C.§ 1140] .

Ni ebauer , 44 F. Supp. 3d at 168.

Thi s r ul i ng i nappr opr i at el y conf l at es r evi ew of deni al -

of - benef i t s cl ai ms wi t h r evi ew of i nt er f er ence cl ai ms. I n deni al -

of - benef i t s cases, " t he or di nar y quest i on i s whet her t he

admi ni st r at or ' s act i on on t he r ecor d bef or e hi mwas unr easonabl e. "

-31-



Li st on v. UNUM Cor p. Of f i cer Sever ance Pl an, 330 F. 3d 19, 24 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) . I n such cases, " summar y j udgment i s si mpl y a vehi cl e

f or deci di ng t he i ssue[ , whi ch] means t he nonmovi ng par t y i s not

ent i t l ed t o t he usual i nf er ences i n i t s f avor . " Or ndor f , 404 F. 3d

at 517. I n i nt er f er ence cases, by cont r ast , "t he ul t i mat e i nqui r y

. . . i s whet her t he empl oyment act i on was t aken wi t h t he speci f i c

i nt ent of i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he empl oyee' s ERI SA benef i t s. " Bar bour

v. Dynami cs Resear ch Corp. , 63 F. 3d 32, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . The

cour t i s t hus r evi ewi ng an empl oyer ' s conduct , r at her t han an

admi ni st r at or ' s deci si on, and as such, t her e i s no admi ni st r at i ve

determi nat i on t hat commands def erence. I ndeed, our cases have

uni f orml y appl i ed t he typi cal summary j udgment st andard — under

whi ch evi dence i s r evi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

nonmovi ng par t y — i n assessi ng i nt er f er ence cl ai ms. See, e. g. ,

Kouvchi nov v. Par amet r i c Tech. Cor p. , 537 F. 3d 62, 66–70 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ; Lehman v. Prudent i al I ns. Co. of Am. , 74 F. 3d 323, 327,

330–31 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ; Bar bour , 63 F. 3d at 36–42. We t her ef ore

r emand t hi s count t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or consi der at i on under t he

appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew.

III. Conclusion

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, we AFFI RM t he j udgment of t he

di st r i ct cour t as t o Count I of t he compl ai nt . We VACATE t he

j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t as t o Count I I of t he compl ai nt and

-32-



r emand f or pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. No cost s ar e

awar ded.

33

niebauer v. crane & co., inc., 1st cir. (2015)

Documents