## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2451 M ICHAEL M ARRS, o n b eh al fo fhi m se l fa nd a l l o the r s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. M OTOROLA, I NC ., e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C5463

— Sus an E . C ox, Magis trate Judge
.
A RG UE D M AY 26, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 14, 2009

Be f o r e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd P OSNER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Th is s u it u n d er E R ISA fo r d isa b ili ty paym ents prese nts the r ecurr i ng quest i on wh ether an em plo yee welf ar e be nefi ts pla n cr eat es an enti tl em ent to l i feti m e benefi ts ra ther than j ust to benefit s t hat ca n b e te r m i na te d b y a n a m en dm en t to the pl an . I n 199 7 M i chaelM ar rs , an em plo yee of M oto ro l a, cea sed w or ki ng be cause ofa psychi atr i c co nd i tion and bega n2 N o. 08

- 2451 draw i ng di sabi l i ty benefi ts u nd erM oto ro l a’ s Di sabi l i ty I ncom e Pl an. S i x yea rs l ate r M oto ro l a a m ended th e plan to pla ce a tw o-ye arl i m i t o n benefi ts f ordi sabi l i ty re sul ti ng fro m cer tai n “M ental, N er vous, A l cohol, [ or ] DrugRel ate d” ( M N A D) co nd i ti ons, i ncl ud i ng M ar rs ’ s. S uch l i mi t a t i o n s o n MN AD co n d i t i o n s a r e c o mmo n i n e mp loy ee d isa b ility p la n s. Roge rs v. D epar t m e ntof He al t h & Envi r onment al Cont r ol , 174 F
. 3d 431, 43 5 ( 4th Ci r. 19 99) ; se e, e.g ., Krol ni k v. Pr ude nt i al Ins . Co. , N o . 0 8

- 2 6 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 WL 18 38 29 8, at *1 ( 7 t h C i r., Jun e 2 9, 20 09 ); Hac kne rv. Lo ng Ter m D i s ab i l i ty Plan f

or Em pl oye e s of

HaviGr oup LP , 8 1 F e d. A p p ’x 58 9, 59 1 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); Ka ha ne v . UN UM Life Ins. Co. , 56 3 F
. 3d 1210 , 12 12 ( 11th Cir. 2009 ) ; S tev en J
. S acher et al., Em pl oye eBe ne

f i t s La w 1 0 0 3

- 0 5 , 1 1 4 7

- 4 8 ( 2 d e d. S up p. 2008 ) ; cf

. Dana L. Kap l an, “Can Legislati on Alo ne S ol ve A m er i ca’ s M entalH eal th Di l em m a? Curr ent S tat e Legi sl ati ve Schem es Cann ot A ch ieve M entalH eal th Par i ty, ” 8 Q uinnipiac Health L. J. 32 5, 32 8- 30 ( 2005 )
. Pre vi ousl y, ho wev er, M o to r o l a ha d im p o se d no t i m e l i m i t o n the r e c e i pto fs uc h b e ne fi t s . Al tho ugh M a r r s h a d a l r e a dy re cei ved benefi ts f orm or e than two yea rs , he w as gi ven an addit i onaltwo ye ar s o fbene fi ts , star ti ng o n the date o f th e a me n d me n t
. T h a t p e r i o d h a s e n d e d a nd t he b e ne fi t s h a v e c e a s e d. H i s s u i t i s o n b e h a l f o f h i ms e l f a n d o th e r s i n t he sa m e po si ti o n, a nd a c l as s ac tion has be enc er ti fi ed. The d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j ud gm en t in M otorola’s f avo r. In an ea rl i erst age o fthe l i ti gat i on, the dist ri ct cou rt h ad d ism issed tw o other claim s un d er Ru le 12(b) (6). M ar rs ren ew s t h e m on ap p ea l, b u t t h ey are to o c lea rly wi th o u tme r i tt o r e q u i r e u s t o d i s c u s s th e m.N o. 08

- 2451 3 M ar r s co nt en ds th atthe ap pl i ca ti o n o fthe a m en dm en t t o p e r s o n s i n h i s s i t u a t i o n v i o l a t e s a p r o v i s i o n o ft he disabi l i ty- i ncom e pl an that, l i ke the provi si on i n A rt i cl e V ofthe U

. S. Consti tuti on a ccor ding to w hi ch a sta te cannot by c on stituti onalam endm ent b e depri ved ofi ts right to tw o s en ators w ithou t its con sen t, li m its M otorola’s pow er to am en d the pl an . The pr o vi si o n s ta te s th atno amendment“s ha l l a dve r se l y a ffec t th e r i g ht s o fa ny Pa r t i c i pa ntt o r ecei v e b e ne fi t s wi th r e s pe c tt o p e r i o ds o fDi s a b i l i ty p r i o r t o the a do pt i o n date o fthe [ a men dm ent]
. ” M ar rs i nter prets “per i ods o fD i sabi l i ty pri orto the a doptio n date” to m ean o ne o r m or e per i ods o fdi sabi l i ty th at b egan befor e the pl an was am ended but m ay no t ha ve e nde d b efo r e th en . That i s a f or ced r eadi ng. The r efer ence i n the pla n to “peri ods” rather than “per i od” sug ges ts the s egm entat i on ofa peri od ofdi sabi l i ty, with s om e s egm ents ( “pe rio ds”) l y i ngb efo r e an d s o m e afte r the a m en dm en t. I t i s true th at the pla n defines the te rm “Per i od ofDis abi l i ty” to me a n “ o n e o r mo r e p e r i o d s o fa b s e nc e f r o m A c t i v e E mplo ym ent du e to Disabi l i ty, ” a nd i fwe substi tuted “Per i od ofDis abi l i ty pri orto the pla n” f or“per i ods o fDis ab i l i ty pri or to the pla n” we w oul d com e cl ose r to M ar rs ’ s pre fer re d int er p re ta tio n . B u t t h e p lan p ro vid es th at on ly w ord s the i nitial letters of w hich are ca p itali zed are define d t er m s, and so “per i ods o fDis abi l i ty” cannotbe eq u at ed to “P er iod of D isa b ility .” M ar r s’ s i nt er pr et at i o n i s fur th erunde r m i ne d b y the dis a b i l i t y p l a n tha twa s i n f o r c e i n 1 9 9 7wh e n he s topped wo r k i n ga n d th a ts t a t e s t h a ti fa p a r t i c i p a n tb e c a me di sabl ed pr i o r t o 1 99 4, the be ne fi t l ev el s spe ci fi ed i n the4 N o. 08

- 2451 di sabi l i tyi nc o m e pl ani n f o r ce the n wo ul d “ co nt i nue i n f or ce unti l [ th e p ar tici pant] re turns to w or k forthi rty ( 30 ) da y s. ” Thi s p ro vi si o n wo ul d b e su r pl us ag e i n the superse ding pla n ( w here i t a l so appears) i fthe pl an g ua r an te ed th e co nt i nua ti o n o fdi sabi l i tyb en efits wi th

out dim i nuti on e ven i f, as i n M ar rs ’ s ca se, the disabi l i ty did notar i se bef or e 1 994. W he th erthi s i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe pl an, whi chi s th e p lan ad m in ist ra to r’s int er p re ta ti o n , is c or re c t o r n ot, i t i s r eas onabl e; an d w e are i ncl i ned to sto p w i th thato bs e r v a t i o n. Bu tMar r s a s k s u s t o g i v e n o we i g htt o the a dm i ni str ato r’ s inter preta ti on be cause the a dm i ni str ato r l ab o r ed unde r a c o nfl i cto fint er es t: M o to r o l a i s bo ththe pla n adm i ni str ato r and the payo r of b en efi ts aw ar ded unde r the pl an . M ar rs cit es th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s re c en t d ec isio n in M e t ropol i t an Li

f eIns . Co . v. Gl e nn , 128 S. Ct

. 2343 (2008), w hi ch address es the s i gni fi c an c e of a co nfl i ct o fi nter est b y th e pla n ad m in ist ra to r w h en , as in th at c as e an d t h is one , the p lan com m its the d e c ision w he th er to aw ard benefi ts to the a dm i ni str ato r’s d i scr eti on. ( I fthe pla n d id n otco n fer d isc re tio n on th e a d m in ist ra to r, h is d e c i s i o n wo u l d b e e n t i t l e d t o n o d e fe r e n c e b y th e r e v i e win g c ou rt .) M ar rs r eads Gle nn t o r equi r e “ a m o r e pen et r at i ng inqui r y i nt o the a ct i o ns o fa c o nfl i ct ed admi ni st r at or” th anthe e ar l i er c as e l aw, whi chwas a l l o ve r the m ap

— see K athr yn J
. K ennedy, “J ud i ci al St andard o f Re vie w i n ER I SA B enefi t Cl ai m Cases , ” 5 0 A m . U . L. R ev .N o. 08

- 2451 5 1083 , 1135

- 62 ( 2001 ) ; se e a l so D enm a rk v. Liberty L ife A ssura nc eCo. , 56 6 F
. 3d 1, 6 ( 1stCi r. 20 09)

— h a d r e q u i r e d. A lth o ug h n orm all y an em p loyer can am en d a w elf are benefi ts pla n w i thout re gar d to the em plo yee s’ i nter est s, H ugh e s A ir craf

tCo. v. Jac ob s on , 525 U
. S. 432, 443-44 (1999 ); C urtiss-Wrigh t C o rp. v. Sch o o nejo ng en , 514 U
. S. 7 3, 78 (1995), r emembertha t M ar r s’ s cl ai m i s that the a m en dm en t curta i l i ng hi s be nefi ts vi ol ate d the pl an, and that is a c l a i m o fw r o n g fu l d e n i a l o fb e n e fi t s a n d s o th e S u p r e me C ou rt ’ s c on c er n w ith “c on flict ed ” a d m in ist ra to rs w ou ld see m per ti nent. T rue , the issu e in this case is the interp retation of a p lan d ocu m en t rathe r than the ap p li catio n of the p lan’s cr i te r i a f o r a n a war d o fb en efi ts t o pa r ti cul arf ac ts ; a nd the inter preta ti on o fa contr act, unl ess extr i nsi c ev i dence i s c o ns i de r e d, i s us ua l l y t r e a t e d a s a n i s s ue o f l a w , wh i ch an a p p ell ate tribun al ther ef o r e r es o l ve s wi th o ut d eferri ng to the op inion of th e fi rst-l ine d e cision m aker. Bu t when an ERI SA p l an gi ves the pl an adm i ni str ato r di sc r et i o n t o i nt er pr eti ts t er m s as wel l a s to de te r m i ne elig ibi l i ty f orbene fi ts und erte rm s the m eani ng o fwh i ch is n otqu es tio n ed , th e c ou rtca n, as t h e p ar tie s t o t h is c as e a gr ee , rejec t t h e a d m in ist ra to r’s int er p re ta t ion on ly if it is u n re as on ab le (“ arb itr ar y a n d ca p ric iou s” ). Fi r e s t one Ti re & Ru b b e r Co. v. Bruch , 4 89 U .S. 10 1, 11 5 (1 98 9); Carrv. Gates He al t h CarePla n , 195 F. 3d 292, 29 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( “ un de r the a rb i t r a r y a nd c a pr i c i o us s t a nd a r d, the a dm i n i s t ra to r’s d ec isio n w ill on ly b e o ve rt u rn ed if it is

‘ dow nri ght unr eas onabl e. ’ A deni alo fbene fi ts w i l l not be set asid e ifthe d en ialw as ba s ed up on a reason able interp retation of the p la n d ocu m en ts”) (ci tations om itted );6 N o. 08

- 2451 Call v. Am e r i t e ch M anag e m e nt Pen s i on P lan , 47 5 F
. 3d 816, 82 2 ( 7th Cir. 2 007 )
. And bo ththe o r i g i na l a nd the am ended p l an in th i s ca se conferdi scr eti on o n the pla n adm i ni str ato r to “ co ns t r uean d i nt erpre tt hePla n , de c i de allqu estions of fact an d q ue stions of el igibil ity and de term i ne the a m o unt, manne r a nd tim e o fpa y m en t o fa ny ben efi ts he reu nd er” (em p ha sis add ed ). The adm i ni str ato r i s no t by vi rtue o fsuch a gr ant o f au th or ity free to d isr eg ar d u n am b igu ou s l a n gu ag e in th e p lan , id. at 822-2 3; Swab ac k v. Am e r i ca n Inf or m at i on Tec hnol ogi e s Corp. , 103 F. 3d 535, 540 ( 7th Cir. 1996 ) ( “i ffi du ci ar i es oradm i ni str ato rs o fan ERI SA pla n contr overt th e pl ain mea ni ngo fa pl an, the i r a ct i o ns a re arbi tr ar y a nd capr i ci ous”)

— that w oul d be unre aso nabl e. Bu t the adm i ni str ato r’ s use o fin t e r p r e t i v e to o l s t o d i s a mbi g ua te a m bi g uo us l an gu age i s, o ne woul d thi nk, b y the ter m s o fthe pla n enti tl ed to d efer enti alco nsi derat i on by a r evi ew i ng co urt. Yet Vall one v. CNA Fi nan ci al Corp. , 3 75 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 200 4 ) , a l tho ugh no t i ng tha t the pl a n i n tha t c a s e ga ve th e pl ana dm i ni st r ator i nt er pr et i ve di sc r et i o n, t r ea ts the questi on wh etherbene fi ts cl ai m ed by the pl ain tiff s had ve st ed as a s tr ai g hti ss ue o fc o nt r ac t i nt er p retati o n. The cou rt seem ed to gi ve n o w eight to th e plan ad m inistrator’s j ud gm ent, tho ugh i n the end agr eeing with the a dm i ni str ato r ’ s den i alo fbene fi ts
. Butthe c o ur t was mir r o r i ngthe pa r t i e s ’ e mpha s i s , a nd i tdi d n ot s ay thatthe gr ant o f i nter p re tive di scr eti on t o a pl an adm i ni str ato r i s e nti tl ed to n o w eig h t, alt h ou gh on e p as sa ge in t h e o p in ion co u ld be thought to i m plythi s. S ee id

. at 632. A ny such i m pli ca-N o. 08

- 2451 7 ti on w oul d b e i n tensi on w ith the Fi r e s t onea nd C a rr dec i si o ns

— an d the f o r m eri s a S upr eme Co ur t dec isi on, whi c h i s a t r ump. Confusi on m ay have b een i nj ecte d i nto the i ssue of defe re nce t o i nter preti ve disc re ti on bycas es w h ich sa y that the in te rp retat i on o fan ERI SA p l an i s g ove rned by the or dinar y federa l com m on l aw pri nci ples o f co ntra ct in te rp re ta tio n, e.g., Rut t e nb e rg v. U ni t e d St at e s Li f e Ins . Co. , 413 F. 3d 652, 65 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05); M a thews v. Se ars Pe ns i on Plan , 144 F.3d 46 1, 46 5 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ); D o bs o n v . H a rtfo rd Financial Ser v ic es Group, Inc. , 389 F.3d 386 , 399 (2d Cir. 2004 ), and by cases i n th is ci rcu it that s a y th at w elf are benefi ts pla ns ar e p re su m ed not to cre ate l i feti m e be nefits

. Hac ke t tv. Xe r ox Corp. Long- Ter m D i s ab i l i ty Inc om ePla n , 31 5 F .3d 77 1, 77 4 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); Ross e t t o v. Pabs tBr e win g Co. , 2 17F .3d 5 39 , 5 43 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); con tr a, G i b b s v . C I G NA Corp
. , 440 F. 3d 571, 576 ( 2d Cir

. 20 06)
. But thes e s tat em ents, so far a s a p p lica b le t o p l a n s i n w h ich th e a d m in ist ra to r is gi ven inter preti ve disc re ti on, ar e pr oper l y unders too d as ai ds t o d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e r th e d e n i a l o f b e n e fi t s b y t he ad m inistrator i s reason able, rath e r t h anas w arran ts for a cou rt’s resol ving interp retive disp ut es w ithou t any de ference to the adm i ni str ato r’ s e xerci se ofi nter preti ve disc re ti o n. Thu s, a s ex pl aine d i n R oss v . I n diana State Teacher ’s A ss’n Ins. Trust, 159 F.3d 10 01 , 101 1 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ), “alth ou gh, gene rall y, am biguities i n a n i ns ura nc e po li cy are c on st ru ed in fa vo r of a n ins u re d , in th e E R ISA co n t e x t in whi c h a pl a n a dmi ni s t r a t o r ha s b e e n e mpo we r e d t o i nt er pr etthe t er m s o fthe pl an, th is r ul e do es no t o bt ain. Se e M or t on v. Smit h, 91 F. 3d 867, 87 1 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) (ex p l ain in g t h at ru le of c on tr a p ro fer en te m ap p lies on ly8 N o. 08

- 2451

w hen cour ts und er tak e de n ovo r evi ew o fan a dm i ni str ato r’s int er p re ta tio n of an E R ISA p lan ).” The pla y b et w een pr i nci ple s o fco ntra ct inter preta ti on an d th e scop e of review of a p la n a d m inistrator’s deci si on i s i l l ustr ate d by Hackett

. Th e cou rt had to det erm ine w hich version of a p la n c o nt roll ed the d eterm i nation o fenti tl em ent t o disabi l i ty benefi ts. The ea rl i er ver si on di d not g ra nt i nter preti ve auth or i ty to the pl an ad m inistrator, bu t th e later one d id, so w e h a d to de term i ne a s a ma t t e r o fc o nt r a c tl a w whi c h pl a n c o nt r ol l ed because thatwould deter m i ne the st andard of re vi ew o fth e p l a n a d mi n i s t r a t o r ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n th a twe sh o ul d us e. 3 15 F
. 3d at7 73

- 74
. I n th is ca se b o thpl an s con fer int erp retive aut hority on th e plan ad m inistrator. Butmayb e th e co ur t i n Vall onetho ught that an al l ege d m i sinterpre tat i on o fa pla n’s el i gibi l i ty cri ter i a i s l ess se riou s t h an an a l leg ed m isin te rp re ta tio n of a p lan p ro visi on th at affec ts a n e m pl o y er ’ s r i g htt o a m en d i t wi th o ut tr am pling o n ves ted r i ghts, and ther ef or e that a pp el late re vie w of th e latt er c laim sh ou ld b e less d e f er en tia l. N ei th er V

a ll onenor, to o ur know l edge, any othe r case say s that. N ori s i t a pp ar ent why the i nter p re ti ve pr i nc i pl es ( i nc l udi ngthe sc o pe o fj udi ci alr ev i ew o fthe fi r s t
- l i n e i n t e r p r e te r ’ s d e c i s i o n ) th a tg o v e r n th e t wo ty p es o fi ssue shoul d differ . I n any eve nt we do not thi nk th at the Gle nn deci si on has the si gni fi cance that M ar rs a tta ches to i t e ven i fi t i s full y a pp l i cabl e t o case s i nvol vi ng the i nter preta ti on of pla n am endm en ts al l ege d to i nfr i nge o n ves ted r i ghts. W hen a p ay m en t o fbene fi ts com es out ofthe pla n adm i ni str ato r’ s pock et, the adm i ni st r a tor has anN o. 08

- 2451 9 i ncenti ve to re sol ve a cl ose cas e in f avo r of a d eni alo f benefi ts. But that in c enti ve m ay be o utw ei ghed by o th eri nc en ti ve s, sucha s ane m pl o y er ’ s i nt er es t i n mai ntai ni ng a re pu tati on a m ong curr ent a nd pro specti ve empl o y ee s f o r f ai r de al i ng

— a re p u ta tio n th at m ay e n ab le h im to ob ta in a b et te r-q u alit y e m p loy ee ata low er co st in w ag es an d be n ef its . E .g., Wil li am s v. Inte rpubl ic Severance Pay Plan , 52 3 F
. 3d 819, 82 1- 22 ( 7th Cir. 2008)

. Then to o, the e m plo yee s who ac tu al l y deci de benefi ts cl ai m s a t th e pl an - admi ni st r at o r l ev elmay no t be a cut ely c o ncer ned w i th the fina nci ali m pli cati ons ofa benefi ts aw ar d for t h eir em p loy er . Id . at 8 21 ; P erlm a n v . S w i ss Bank Corp. Com pre he ns i ve D i s ab i l i ty Pr ot e ct i on Plan , 19 5 F.3 d 97 5, 98 1 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ). B u t esp ec ially w h en a firm is stru ggli ng ( w hich m ay or m ay not be the case here

— th ere i s noth in g i n the re cor d bear i ng o n the questi on) , an opportunity forsho rt
- run ec onom i es m ay dom i nate d ec isio n m ak in g b y b en efit s o ffice rs . In an y e ve n t, a m aj o r i tyof th e S upr eme Co ur t J us ti ce s co ns i derthe potenti alco nfl i ct o fi nter esto fa pla n adm i ni str ato r ( or i ts sta ff ) ser i ous enough to be gi ven w ei ght i n j u d ici al re vi ew o fthe denia l o fbene fi ts. Bu t ho w m uch w ei ght s hould it be g i ven? The nub o f the Gle nn o pini on i s the f ol l owing passag e: [W ]h e n ju d ge s re vie w th e la w fu ln es s o f be n efit d en ial s, th ey w il l often tak e acco un t of seve ral d if

f er en tc o ns i de r a t i o ns o fwh i c h a c o nfl i c to fi nt e r est i s o ne. Thi s k i nd o fr evi ew i s no str angerto the j ud i ci al sys tem
. N ot onl y t rustl aw , but al so ad m in istrat i ve l aw , can askj ud ges to deter m i ne l aw fulne ss by10 N o. 08

- 2451 tak i ng ac count o fse ve ra l di ffer ent, o ften c ase sp ec ific , f ac to rs , rea c h in g a res u lt b y w eig h in g a ll tog ether

. I n such i nstance s, any one f acto r w i l l actas a t ieb r e a k e r w h en th e o th er fac to rs are clo se ly b alan ce d, the deg r ee o fc l o se ne ss ne ce ss ar y de pen di ng up on the ti ebr eak i ng factor ’ s inherento r case spe ci fi c i m po r ta nc e. The c o nfl i cto fi nt er es t ati ss ue he r e, f o r e xa m pl e, s ho ul d pr o ve m o r e i m po r ta nt ( perhaps o fgr eati m port ance) wh er e ci rcum sta nces su g g es t a hi g he r l i k el i ho o d t ha t i t affec te d the ben efi ts deci si on, i ncl ud i ng, but not l i m i ted to , cas es w here an insurance com pany adm i ni str ato r h as a h ist or y of b ias ed cla im s a d m in ist ra tio n . I t s h o u ld pr o ve l es s i m po r ta nt( perha ps to the v an i sh i ng po i nt ) wh e r e the a dmi ni s t r a t o r h a s ta k e n a c t i v e s t e ps to re du ce pot enti albi as and to p rom ote acc uracy, for ex am p le, by w all ing offclai m s ad m inistrators f r o m th o s e i n t e r e s t e d i n fi r m fi n a n c e s , o r b y i mposi ng m anage m ent c hecks th at penal i ze i naccurat e deci si onm aking i rr espect i ve ofwh om the i naccurac y benefi ts. 128 S. Ct. at23 51 ( ci tat ion s om i tte d). A di sse nt by Ju st ice Sc a l ia a rg u ed th at a c on flict of in te re st sh ou ld onl y pr om pt an i nqu iry in to the e xi ste nce o fi m proper m otive tha t w ou ld ren d er the p lan ad m inistrat or’s dec i si on unr ea so nabl e. I fthe de ci si o n i s r ea so nabl e, he ar gu ed , in th e s en se in w h ich “a rea so n ab le d ec isio n is one ov erwh i ch r eas onabl e m i nd s s eek i ng the ‘ best ’ o r
‘ r i g h t ’ an sw er co u ld d isa gr ee ,” th e fa c t t h at th e a d m in is t ra to r h ad a c on flict of in te re st is irre lev an t, id

. at23 60, “unle ss th e co nfl i ct actuallya nd im pro perly m o tiv a tes the deci si on. ” Id

. at 2357 (em p ha sis i n origi na l)

.N o. 08

- 2451 11 There ar e tw o w ays to rea d the m aj or i ty opi ni on. One, w h ich tra c ks its lan gu ag e a n d h as be en ec h oe d in op in ion s in th is a n d ot h er cir c u its , e.g., Je nkins v. Price Wat e rhous eLo ng Ter m D i s ab i l i ty Pl an , 5 64 F
. 3d 856, 86 1- 62 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 09 ); H ol l and v. Int ’ l Pape rCo. Re t i r e m e ntPla n , N o. 08

- 30 96 7, 20 09 W L 20506 88, at* 4- * 5 ( 5th Ci r. J uly16 , 20 09 ) , make s th e ex i st en ce o fa c onfli cto fi nt er es t o ne f acto r out ofm any in deter m i ni ng r eas onabl eness . That sou nd s like a balanc ing test in w hich un w eighted f acto rs m yster iouslyar e wei ghed. S uch a t esti s no t co nd uci ve to pr ov i ding gui dance to co urts o r pla n adm i ni str ato rs . “M ult ifactorte sts with no weight as si gned to any f acto r ar e ba d enough fro m the sta nd poi nt o fpro vi ding an obj ecti ve basi s f ora j ud i ci aldeci si on; m ult i f acto r tes ts w h en n on e o fthe f acto rs i s co ncre te ar e wors e. ” M e nar d, Inc . v. Co m m ission er, 56 0 F .3d 620, 62 2- 23 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d); se e a l so Sul l i van v. Wi l l i am A. Randolph, Inc. , 5 04 F.3d 66 5, 67 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Short v. Belle vill e ShoeM f g. Co. , 908 F.2d 138 5, 1394 ( 7th Cir

. 1990) (conc urrin g op in ion ); St e ve ns v. Til l m an , 85 5 F.2d 3 94, 39 9- 400 (7th C ir. 1988). I fth a t ’ s th e t e s tth e S u p r e me C o u r th a s a d o pte d , we m us t bo w. Buti t i s no t cl ea r tha t th e r udder l es s ba l an cing tes t s ugges ted bythe passag e that w e qu ote d w as i ntended t o b e the l astwor d o n the s t a nd a r d tha ts ho ul d gui de deci si on i n thes e ca ses . The te st can be m ade m or e di re cti ve, witho ut co ntra dict i ng the Court ’ s o pinion, byfi rs t re cog ni zi ng tha t whil e a deci si on m ay l ookrea so n ab le if one j ust r eads the deci si on a n d t h e r eco rd, a deci si on that i s “ re aso nabl e” ra ther than cl ear l y cor re ct i s a deci si on that m igh t j u st as w ell h av e g on e t h e o th er w ay , U ni t e d St at e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 81 F. 3d 143 4, 1437

- 38 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) , as wh en12 N o. 08

- 2451 “r ea sonab l e” i s us ed, a s i t o fte n i s, t o meantha t a r ul i ng w as n o t a n ab u se of d isc re tio n . C a ll v. A m eritech M a na gem e ntPe ns i on Plan , sup ra , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d a t8 2 2
. I fth e c i r c u mst an ce s i ndi ca te tha t pr o babl y the de ci si o n de ny i ng benefi ts w as deci si vel y infl uenced by the pl an adm i ni str ator ’ s c onfl i ct o fi nter est, i t m ust be se t a si de, j ust a s a d ec isio n b y a j u d ge w h o sh ou ld h av e re c u s e d h im se lf m us tb e s e ta s i de e v e n i fh e mi g htwe l l h a v e r eached th e s am e d ec isio n h ad th er e b ee n n o b as is for rec u sa l. The l i ke l i hoodthatthe confl i ct o fin te re st i nfl uenced the deci si on i s there f or e the deci si ve c onsider ati on, as see m s i m pli ci t in t he m aj or i ty opi ni on’ s r efer ence to i nd i cati ons of“ p ro ceduralunrea sonab l eness ” in the pla n adm i ni str ato r’ s handl i ng of the cl ai m i n i ssue, 128 S. Ct. at 2352 , and i ts sugge sti on that e ff or ts by a a dm i ni str ato r to m i ni m i ze a co nfl i ct o fi nter estwould w eig h i n f avo r of u p h old in g h is d ec isio n . Id

. at2 35 1. I t i s th us no t th e exi ste nce o fa confl i ct of inter est

— w h ich is a giv en in alm ost al l ERIS A cas es

—but the gravityo fthe c o nfl i c t, as i n fe r r e d fr o m th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , th a ti s c r i t i c a l

. F o r e x a mple , the ter m s o fem p loym ent o fthe sta ffthatdeci des benefi ts cl ai m s m i ght, co nsi ste nt with the Wi l l i a ms a nd Per l m an cases ofthi s co urt, affect a dete rm i nati on o f h ow likely it is th at th os e e m p loy e e s w ou ld sla n t t h eir deci si ons i n f avo r ofth eir em plo yer ’ s s hor t- ter m i nter est i n m i ni m i zi ng hi s be nefi ts expense. J us t i c e S c a l i a a pp e a r s t o b e l i e v e tha t ifth e p l a n a dm inis t r a tor has no im p rop er m otive, th e existen ce of a confl i ct o fi nt er est cannothave affecte d the deni alo f ben efi ts: “ifon e is to d raw any inferen ce abo ut a fidu ciaryN o. 08

- 2451 13 f ro m the f act that he m ade an i nfo rm ed, r eas onabl e, tho ugh a p p ar en tly se lf-se rv in g d isc re tio n ar y d ec isio n, i t s h ou ld be that he sup pressed h is selfi sh i nter est( as the s ett l or anti ci pated) i n com pli ance w i th h is d uti es ofgo od f ai th an d l oya l ty. ” Id

. a t2 3 6 0 ( e mpha s i s i n o r i g i na l )
. Bu ti f, as w e h av e s u g ge st ed , bot h a d ec isio n in fa vo r of t h e a p p licant forbene fi ts and a d eci si on a gainst m ay be r easonab l e, the pla n adm i ni str ato r’ s co nfl i ct o fi nter estm ay c a u s e h i m unconscious lyt o de ci de ag ains t th e appl i ca nt and thus i n f avo r ofthe p lan ’s fi nanci alwelf ar e; hence the m aj or i ty J u sti ces’ i nter esti n w hetherthe pla n est abl i shes safeguar ds desi gn ed to m i ni m i ze such a tendency. The r e ar e no i ndi ca ti o ns i n thi s ca se , ho wev er, tha t th e pla n ad m in istr ato r l abor ed und era confl i ct o fi nter est ser i ous e nough to i nfl uenc e hi s deci si on co nsci ousl y o r u n c on sc iou sly

— a d ec isio n th at w as ot h er w ise en tir ely re as on ab le

— deci si vel y. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on m ust ther ef or e be A FFI RMED .

8- 14- 09