T he H o no rable John R

. A d am s, U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he N o rt hern D i st ri ct of O hi o , s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. File Na me: 09a0639n.06 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION No. 08-4539 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

STEVEN CL I

NE, ) ) P laintif f-App ellee, ) ) ON AP P EA L FROM THE U NI TED ) STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR v. ) THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT OF ) O H IO ) RET I REM EN T PLANF OR TH E G L ASS ) ROCK PL ANT & MI L L WOOD PL ANT OF ) O G LE B A Y N O R T O N IN D U S T R IA L ) SANDS, I

NC.; OGL EBA Y NORTON ) I NDUSTRI AL

SANDS, I

NC., )

) De fend ant s- App e lla nt s. ) ) BEF OR E: NORRIS and COLE, Circuit Jud ges; AD AMS, Distric t Judge. * ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. Def endants, the Retirement Plan f or the Glass Rock Plant and Millwood P lant of Og lebay No rton Industrial Sands, I nc., and O g lebay Norton I ndustrial Sands, I nc. (collec tively “def endants” ), appe al the district cour t’s deter mination that the adminis trators of O g lebay ’s re tirement plan (“ the Plan”) wrong ly denied plaintiff Steve n Cl i n e benefits under the Plan. For the rea sons outlined below, we a ffirm the de cision of the district court.Cl i ne v. Ret i r ementPl an N o. 08- 4539

- 2 - The district cour

t acc urate ly

summarized the undisputed fac ts of this appeal, a nd we se e no need to r epeat them here . Shortly afte r the case arr ived in the district c ourt, the par ties filed cross-motions for judg ment on the admini s trative re cord. B ased on the plain lang uag e of the Plan’s elig ibilit y

require ments, the court c o ncluded that the a dminist rators’ decision deny ing Clin e be ne fi ts w a s arb itrar y and c a pr ic iou s, so it g ra

nte d Cl ine ’s mot ion . T ho se e lig ibi lity

re qu ir e me nts are a s f

oll ow s: A Participant who te rminates employ ment as a result of a disability and who ha s c omp le te d at le a st t e n y ears of Cre dit e d Se rv ic e a t th e tim e the dis a bil ity fi rs t c omm e nc e s and

wh o is su

bs e qu e ntl y

de e me d to be p e rm ane ntl y and tot a lly dis a ble d in ac c or da

nc e wi th the F e de ra l Soci a l Sec ur ity Ac t sha ll b e e nti tle d to Disability Be nefits her eunder

. Def endants a rgued in the di strict court that in order to be elig ible for be nefits under the Plan, Cline must have been totally and perma nently disabled in a ccor dance with the Fe d eral Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ac t a t t h e ti m e o f h is te rm in a tion

. T here fore , the ar g ument g oes, Cline was ine lig ibl e be c a

us e the Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ad min istra tio n d e te rm ine d that he did no t be c ome tot a lly

and pe rm ane ntl y dis a

ble d unti l mor e tha

n two y e ars late r. Clin e re sp on de d th a t th e Plan’ s p la in langua g e be lie s d e fe nd ants ’ r e a din g , b e c a us e that la ngua g e re qu ir e s o nly

that he te rm inate d h is employ ment as a r esult of a “d i s ab i l i ty ,” and the n is later dete rmined to be totally and perma nently disabled by

the Social Secur ity

Adm i n i s t ra t i on as of t

ha t la te r d

ate . The district

c ourt a g re e d w ithClin e ’s un de rs tand ing , a nd c on c lud e d th a t he me t both of the se re qu ir e me nts , and wa s theref

ore e ligible f

or bene fits. I t rea soned that re quiring a par ticipant to be totally

and perm an en tly

disabled at the time of te rmination would nece ssitate rewriting the terms of the Plan; its curr ent re quirement that a participa nt “is subsequently

deeme d to be perma

nently andCl i ne v. Ret i r ementPl an N o. 08- 4539

- 3 - tot a lly dis a ble d” wo uld

ne e d to be re vis e d to ins te a d re qu ir e that the pa rt ic ipa nt “ su bs e qu e ntl y be dee med to have be en perma nently and totally

disabled” at the time of his termination. The pa rties advance the same arg uments on appea l that they did below, and we aff

irm on the re asoning of the district c ourt insofar as it c oncluded from the lang uag e of the Plan that the administrators’ de cision denying Cline be nefits was a rbitrar y and ca pricious. Howeve r, we need not r eac h the def endants’ c omplaint about that portion of the district court’s opinion in which the court suppli ed a de finition of the word “ disability ”. Elig ibilit y for benef its under the Plan is conditioned in part upon employ ment being“ter

minated as a

result of a disability .” I t does not, there fore , matter whether the participa nt was actually disabled at the time of termination; the re levant qu es t ion is whether he was ter minated bec ause the employ er considere d him disabled. Here , the re cord indicates that Og lebay did consider the r eason f or Clin e ’s te rm inatio n to be his dis a bil ity , a nd defend ants have no t at any po int dis pute d th is proposition. I t is also undisput ed that C line had completed ten y ear s of credited ser vice at the tim e his di sab il ity

be g an, and

the Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ad min ist ratio n late r d e e me d th is v e ry same disability to be per manent and total. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is aff irm ed

.