2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-21-2009 

# D e nni s S a dd le r v

. Elliott C omp an

y P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1476

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D e nni s S a ddle r v

. Ell iott C omp an

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 63. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/63NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1476

D E N N IS S A D D L E R , A ppel l ant

v. E L L I OT T CO M P ANY

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 01320 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber14, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber21, 2009 )

OP I NI ONT he D i s t r i ctC our thad subj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uant 1 to 28 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 . O u r j u ri sd ict ion to rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s f in a l o rd e r a ri s e s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antD enni s Saddl er( “Saddl er ”) appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t f o r E lli o tt C o m p a n y(“ E lli o tt”), h is f o rm e r e m p lo y e r, o n h is cl ai m forbenef

i t s al l egedl ydue undert he Em pl oy ee Ret i r ementI ncome Secur i t yA ctof 1 9 7 4 (“ E R IS A ” ) (a s a m e n d e d ), 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a )(1 )(B ). S a d d ler a ss e rts th a t h e is e n title d to s e v e ra n c e p a yp u rs u a n t to th e E llio tt C o m p a n yS e v e ra n c e P la n (t h e “ P la n ” ). W e wi l l a f

f i r m. 1 I. A s the p art i es subm i t t ed a JointS t at em ent of F act s for purposes of thei r cr ossm oti on s for s um m aryj ud gm ent, t he rel evan tfact s ar e no ti n d i spute. S add l er i s a part i ci pan ti n the Plan w hich i s adm i nis t ered un der E R ISA . S add l er w orked a tE l l i ottas a p rojec t en g in e e r f

o r th irty -tw o y e a rs, th e latte r p a rt o f h is te n u re in E lli o tt’s P lan t A ir Packagi ng G r oup ( t he “PA P G r oup”) . I n ear l ySept ember2003, E l l i ot tent er ed i nt o an A s s e tPur c ha s e A gr e e mentt o s e l l t he a s s e t s of t he PA P G r ou p t o a no t he re nt i t y , F. S. E llio tt C o m p a n y(“ F .S . E llio tt” ). B efor e the s al e w as compl et e, E l l i ot tm anage r s hel d m eet i ngs w i t h empl oy ees of t he PA P gr oup w ho w oul d be “tr ans ferr ed” t o F. S. E l l i ot tt o t el l t hem “t hatt heyw er e not bei ng l ai d off. ” A pp. at45. Saddl erw as t r ans ferr ed t o F. S. E l l i ot t , w her e he ha d t heA l s o, t he D i s t r i ct C our tfound El l i ot t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the 2 phr as e “pl antcl os i ng” t o be “i ncons i s t ent w i t h [i t s ] conductunder t h e P l a n , ” b e c a u s e E l l i o t th a d p r o v i d e d s e v e r a n c e p a y t o t h e P AP G r ou p e mpl oy e e s w ho w e r e no tt r a ns ferr e d f r om El l i ottt o F. S. E ll iott . A p p . at 12 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtrea so n ed that, sinc e the re w as no evi dence o f a decl i ne i n bus i nes s ora t echnol ogy i m pr ovementw hen i toccurr ed, E l l i ot tt r eat ed the tr ans ferof the PA P G r oup as a pl ant cl os ur e. W e need not deci de tha t i ssue beca us e w e fi nd anotherdi s pos i t i on. 3 s a me j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , a n d wo r k e d f o rt h e s a me o rb e t t e rs a l a r y , o u to f t h e s a me bui l di ng, att he s ame des k, and w i t h t he s ame t el ephone number . Fi ve mont hs aft ert he tr a n s f e r, S a d d le r r e s ig n e d f

ro m F .S . E llio tt. T hen, i n Sept ember2006, m or e than tw o y ear s aft erhe r es i gned and ne ar l yt hr ee y ear s aft ert he tr ans fer , Saddl ers oughts ever ance payfr om E l l i ot t . E l l i ot t ’ s w r i t t en S e v e ra n c e P a yP o licya llo w s p a ym e n t at E lli o tt’s d isc re tio n to e m p lo y e e s w h o lo se th e ir job u n d er three circu m stan ce s: ( 1 ) a d ec li n e in b u sine ss; ( 2 ) plan t cl o sing ; or (3) a t echnol ogyi m pr ovement . E l l i ot tdeni ed Saddl er ’ s cl ai m fors ever ance pay . T w o m ont hs late r, S a d d ler a p p e a led E lli o tt’s d e n ial o f h is re q u e st f

o r se v e ra n c e p a y , arg u in g th a t h is jo b a t E llio tt “ w a s e lim in a te d d u e to th e p la n t c lo s u re /s a le ” to F .S . E llio tt. A p p . a t 4 8 . E l l i o t td e n i e d S a d d l e r ’ s a p p e a l , f i n d i n g t h a tS a d d l e rd i d n o tl o s e h i s j o b a n d t h a tt h e P AP G ro u p n e v e r c lo s e d . T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed thatE l l i ott ’s i nterpret at i on of the ph ras e “j ob l oss” undert he Pl an w as notarbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous as i tappl i ed t o Saddl er . T he D i s t r i ct 2 C o u rt so f

o u n d a f ter tak in g in to c o n sid e ra tio n E lli o tt’s in h e re n t f in a n c ial in ter e st in4

deny i ng Saddl ers ever ance pay . I tacc or di ngl ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforE l l i ot tand deni ed Saddl er ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to g ra n t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. II. A s w e expl ai ned i n D or os how v. H ar t f or d Li f e and Acci dent

I ns ur ance Com

pany , 5 7 4 F .3 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 -3 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt re c e n tlyc lar if ied th e a p p ro p ria te s t a n d a r d t r i a l c o u r t s mu s ta p p l ywh e n r e v i e wi n g d e n i a l s o f b e n e f i t s u n d e rE RI S A § 1 1 3 2 (a )( 1 )( B ). See M

etr o. Li f e I ns . C o. v. G l enn , 128 S. C t . 2343 ( 2008) . I f the admi ni s t r at orof a be nefi t s pl an has di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne el i gi bi l i t yforbenef i t s , as E l l i ot tdi d her e, t he deni al of bene fi t s i s t o be r evi ew ed underan arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous s ta n d a rd . F i r es t one Ti r e & R ubberC o. v. B r uch , 489 U . S. 101, 115 ( 1989) . W e have hel d t hatan arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d of r evi ew i n t hi s cont exti s “es s ent i al l yt he s ame as t he ‘ abus e of di s cr et i on’ s t andar d. ” A bnathya v. H of f m an- La R oche, I

nc. , 2 F. 3d 40 , 45 n. 4 (3d C i r. 19 93 ) ( i nternal ci t at i on om i t t ed). H ow ever, revi ew i ng cou rt s m ust w e i g h a s a f

a c t o rt h e i n h e r e n tc o n f

l i c to f i n t e r e s tp r e s e n t e d w h e n t h e s a m e p a r t y p a ys b e n e f its a n d d e te rm in e s e lig ib ility. See G l enn , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 23 5 0 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l yappl i ed thes e s t andar ds w hen i tr evi ew ed El l i ot t ’ s deni al of Saddl er ’ s cl ai m for s e v e r a n c e p a y. In a n aly zing the m erit s o f S ad d ler’s r eq u est fo r sev era n ce p ay , the D istri ct C o u rt fi rs tdeterm i ned t hat the term “j ob l oss” i s am biguou s und er the term s of t he P l an b ecause it co u ld b e in terp re ted re a so n a b lyin tw o w a y s. N o n e th e les s, th e C o u rt h e ld th e P lan d idno tcom pel Ell i ottt o fo l l ow t he int erpr et at i on m ostfavo rabl e t o the em ploy ee bec ause

s uch an i nt erpr et at i on w oul d evi s cer at e the admi ni s t r at or ’ s di s cr et i on, i n contr avent i on of G l enn . T hu s, as G l enn m and at es, t he D i stri ctC ou rtw ei gh ed the con fl i ctof int eres tas a fac t or , and r eas oned thatE l l i ot tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hatSaddl er s u f f e re d n o jo b lo s s . W e a g re e . E l l i ot tm anage r s t ol d Saddl ert hathe w as notbei ng l ai d off be for e the tr ans fer fr om E l l i ot tt o F. S. E l l i ot t . Saddl erm i s s ed no w or k aft ert he tr ans fer . O n t he contr ary , he s atatt he s ame des k w i t h t he s ame j ob r es pons i bi l i t i es , t el ephone number , s ame orbet t er salary , an d b ec am e u n em p loy ed o n lyw h en h e v o lun tari lyresign ed fro m F . S . E ll iott . In lig h t o f th o se stip u late d f

a c ts, E lli o tt d id n o t ac t in a n a rb itrar yo r c a p ric io u s m a n n e r in c o n c lu d in g th a t S a d d le r d id n o t s u f f e r a jo b lo s s . M o re o v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt se a rc h e d th e re c o rd a n d f o u n d th a t “th e re a re n o f a c ts of record – o t her than t he p otent i al con fl i cti t sel f – thatanypo t enti al con fl i ctof int eres t i nfl uence d E l l i ott ’ s deci s i on . . . . ” A pp. at14. Such anal y s i s acc or ds w i t h G l enn . See 128 S. C t . at2351 ( hol di ng t hatt r i al cour t s m us tgi ve a c onfl i ctof i nt er es tgr eat erw ei ght w h e n “ c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u g g e s t a h ig h e r l ik e lih o o d th a t it a f f e c te d th e b e n e f

its d e c is io n . . .

. ”). III . Fort he above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng E lli o tt’s m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 5