2008 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

8-8-2008 

# P el l v . EI DuP ont de N e mours P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-5006

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" P e l l v . EI DuP ont de N e mour s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 593. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/593P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 06- 5006 and 06- 5088

M ELVY N PELL; ELLEN PELL A ppel l ant s N o. 06- 5088

v. E. I

. DUPONT DE NE M OURS & COMP ANY I NC OR P OR AT E D, I ndi vi dual l yand i n i t s capa ci t yas A dm i ni s t r at or of the D uPont Pens i on and R et i r ementPl an; T HE BO AR D OF BE NE F I T S AND P E NS I ONS O F E. I

. D U PO N T D E N EM O U RS, A ppel l ant s N o. 06- 5006

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D

. C

. N o. 02- cv- 00021) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K entA

. J or dan

A r gued A pr i l 15, 2008T he H onor abl e P aul R

. M i chel , C hi ef J udge of the * U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he F eder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 2 Be f o r e : AM BRO , FI SHER a n d M I CH EL, C i r cui tJudges

. * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t8, 2008) R ober tJ acobs ( A r gued) J acobs & C rum pl ar 2 E as t7t h St r eet P. O

. B ox 1271 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 A tto rn e y fo r Me lvy n P e ll a n d

E llen P e ll D onna L. G oodm an E

. I

. D uPont de N emours & C om pany L egal D epart m ent Sui t e D

- 7017A 1007 M arketSt r eet W i l m i ngt on, D E 198983 R aym ond M

. R i ppl e ( A r gued) E

. I

. D uPont de N emours & C om pany L egal D epart m ent Sui t e D

- 7012 1007 M arketSt r eet W i l m i ngt on, D E 19898 A t t orneys f

or E

. I. D up on tde N

em ou rs & Com pany I ncor por at ed and the B oar d of B enef i t s and P ens i ons of E

. I. D up on tde N

em ou rs

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. R e tired e m p lo y e e M e lv yn P e ll an d h is w if e , E llen P e ll ( col l ect i vel y , “Pel l ”) i ni t i at ed t hi s l i t i gat i on agai ns t E

. I

. D uPont de N emours and C o. and i t s B oar d of B enef i t s and Pens i ons ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , “ Du P o n t ” ) u n d e rth e E m p l o y e e R e t i r e me n tI n c o me S e c u rityA c t (“ E R IS A ” ). P e ll c laim e d th a t h is pe n sio n b e n e f it is lo w e r th a n D u P o n t h a d led h im to e x p e c t. A f ter a b e n c h trial, t he D i s t r i ctC our tenj oined D uPontt o us e a “ cr edi t ed s ervi ce date” of A ug ust1, 19 72 , w hen cal culat i ng P el l ’s futur e ben efi t s, res ult i ng i n a higher m on t hlypen si on ben efi t

. T he p art i es cr oss appea l ed. For t h e r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m t h e Di s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s ru l i n g t h a tP e l l i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f u n d e rE R I S A

. We4 w ill re v e rse th e D istric t C o u rt’s ru lin g th a t P e ll i s n o t en tit led to res t i tuti on for hi s pastun du l yl o w pen si on pay m ents

. A ddi t i onal l y , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nj unct i on i ns ofaras i tr equi r es D uPontt o cal cul at e Pel l ’ s benef i tus i ng t he A ugus t1, 1972 s er vi ce da t e, beca us e w e concl ude t hatD uPont m us tus e a s ervi ce da t e of February10, 1971.

I

. BA CK GR OUND O n F ebrua r y10, 1971, C ons ol , a w hol l y - ow ned su b sid iar yo f

C o n o c o , In c ., h ire d c h e m ica l e n g in e e r M e lv yn P e ll to w o rk a t its f

a c ili ty in P itt sb u rg h , P e n n sy lv a n ia. A c c o rd in g to th e ter m s o f th e C o n so l P e n sio n P lan , P e ll w a s n o t elig ib le to p a rticip a te in th e C o n so l P lan u n til th e f irst d a yo f

th e m o n th fol l ow i ng hi s t hi r t i eth bi r t hday

. Pel l tur ned thi r t yi n J ul y1972, and t hu s h i s p e n s i o n b e n e f i t c a l c u l a t i o n d a t e was Aug u s t1, 1 9 7 2

. In 1 9 8 1 , C o n o co an d C o n so l m erg ed w ith D u P o n t. In 1 9 8 2 , P e ll ac c e p ted a tem p o ra ryp o sitio n w ith D u P o n t in W ilm in g to n , D e law a re . U n d e r th e tem p o ra rya ss ig n m e n t, P e ll rem aine d a C o n so l em p loy ee an d co n ti n u ed to rec eive h is salary a n d b e n e f

its f ro m C o n so l. I n 1983, D uPont , C o n so l, and C onoco j oi nt l ycr eat ed a pol i cycover i ng t he tr ans ferof empl oy ees b etw een the compani es . T he tr ans fer gui del i nes w er e notm eantforgener al di s t r i but i on, s i nce r el at i vel yfew empl oy ees t r ans ferr ed betw een t he compani es . A l l t hr ee c om pani es fol l ow ed the gui del i nes w hen ef fec t i ng per m anentempl oy ee tr ans fer s . T he gui del i nes expl ai ned how pens i ons w oul d be ca l cul at ed fort r ans fer red em ploy ees:O n N ovember1, 1975, t he C ons ol pens i on pl an cha nged 1 s o t hati tno l ongerhad opt i onal contr ibu tory featur es . T he D uPont B oar d of D i r ect or s adopt ed the 1975 cut o ff d at e for p e n sio n c o m p u ta tio n s in o rd e r to p re v e n t in e q u iti e s th a t co u ld have a r i s en bas ed on w hether t r ans ferr ed C ons ol empl oy ees had par t i ci pat ed i n t he contr i but or yfea tur e. 5 “C ont i nui t yof Ser vi ce D uPont w i l l r ecogn i z e a t r a n s fer r ed Co n o c o / Co n s o l e mp l oy e e ’ s s e r v i c e t o t h e s a me ext entC onoco/ Con s o l r ecogni zed i tatt he tr ans fer d a te. . . . T h is s e r v ice w ill b e u se d f o r b e n e f it e lig ib ility, v e s tin g , a n d p e n s io n c o m p u ta tio n . . . . C ons ol s ervi ce f

orD uPontpens i on cal cul at i on pu rposes w i l l be r ecogni zed onl yfr om 11/ 1/ 75 fo r war d

. ( Al t h o u g h a l l s e r v i c e r e c o g n i z e d by

1 C ons ol w i l l be us ed t o det erm i ne pen sion a nd o ther p lan e li g ibil ity . )” T he tr ans fergui del i nes al s o cont ai ned a pr ovi s i on s t at i ng t hatw hen D uPontr ece i ved a tr ans ferr ed empl oy ee, C onoco/ C ons ol w oul d furnish a l et t ert o t he tr ans ferr ed empl oy ee i ndi cat i ng t he empl oy ee’ s y ear s of s ervi ce, adj us t ed s er vi ce da t e, bene fici arydes i gnat i ons , cr edi t abl e s ervi ce, and el i gi bi l i t yforand part i ci pat i on i n benef i tpl ans . A s ampl e of t hi s l et t ercont ai ned in the gui del i nes s t at ed thatt he company r ecei vi ng t he tr ans ferr ed empl oy ee “ w i l l r ecogni ze [ t he empl oy ee’ s ] s er vi ce t o t he s ame ext entt hat[the s endi ng c o m p a n y ] re c o g n ize d it at th e tim e o f tra n sf e r. T h is s e rv ice w ill6 be us ed forel i gi bi l i t y , ves t i ng and bene fi tco m p u tat i on i n t he [ re c e iv in g c o m p a n y ’s ] b e n e f it p la n s .” In late 1 9 8 3 , P e ll’s D u P o n t m a n a g e r a sk e d P e ll to perm anent l y t r ans fer fr om C ons ol t o D uPont

. Pe ll w as c o n c e rn e d th a t h is s a lar yw o u ld d e c re a se u p o n tra n sf e rrin g to D uPont butbel i eved that D uPont ’ s m or e gener ous pens i on pl an w o u ld o f f se t th e lo w e r sa lar y . P e ll’s p rin c ip a l c o n c e rn a b o u t h is pr os pect i ve D uPont pens i on w as w hether he w oul d be cr edi t ed forhi s t i m e empl oy ed w i t h C ons ol

. Pel l ’ s D uPontm anage rand su p e rv iso r b o th a ss u re d h im th a t h is C o n so l se rv ice tim e w o u ld be count ed undert he D uPontpens i on pl an. W h il e P e ll w a s c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r to p e rm a n e n tly tra n sf e r to D u P o n t, h e re c e iv e d a lette r fro m W ill iam W a d d e ll, t he D i r ect orof Em pl oy ee Com pens at i on and B enef i t s atC ons ol ( t he “W addel l l et t er ”)

. T hatl et t er , d ated J anuary13, 1984, clos elyfo ll o w ed th e tr an sfe r gu idelines

. Itli sted P ell ’s “R et i r ement Pl an C r edi t ed Servi ce D at e” as A ugus t 1 , 1972, w h ich w a s th e sa m e d a te th a t C o n so l re c o g n ize d a s the sta rt d a te undert he C ons ol Pl an. W addel l ’ s l et t erfurt hers t at ed: “R et i r ement Pl an: Y ourt r ans ferw i l l notbe cons i der ed a t erm i nat i on of empl oym en t f or r et i r ement purpos es . B ot h cr edi t abl e s ervi ce a nd earni ngs us ed i n cal cul at i ng y our b enef i tunder C ons ol ’ s R et i r ementPlan w i l l be ‘ fr ozen’ e f f e c tiv e w ith y o u r d a te o f tra n sf e r to D u P o n t. S e rv ice w ith D u P o n t w ill b e d e e m e d m e m b e rsh ip s er vi ce w i t hi n t he t erm s of t h e C o ns ol Pl an and count s onl yforves t i ng purpos es . C om pens at i onA lth o u g h C o n so l em p lo y e e s d id n o t b e c o m e e lig ib le to 2 part i ci pate i n the C on sol P l an unti l aft er t heir t hirt i et h b i rthd ay s, D uPont empl oy ee s w er e el i gi bl e t o par t i ci pat e i n t he D uPont pl an begi nni ng on t hei r fi r s t day of empl oym ent

. February10, 1 9 7 1 , w a s P e ll’s f

irst d a yo f

e m p lo ym e n t w ith C o n so l. 7 e a rn e d d u rin g y o u r em p lo ym e n t w ith D u P o n t w ill be us ed i n det erm i ning y ourfi nal aver age compen s at i on forbenef i tpurpos es undert he D uPont Pl an. T he Pens i on y ou r ece i ve w il l be cal cu l at ed undert he D uPontPl an bas ed on y our to tal c o m b in e d se rv ice . T h is re tire m e n t b e n e f it w i l l be off

s etbyanypaym ent y ou r ece i ve fr om th e C o n so l P lan a s a re su lt o f y o u r a c c ru e d b e n e f it a s o f th e d a te o f

tr a n s f e r.” A f terr e c e iv in g th e se o ra l an d w ritten a ss u ra n c e s a b o u t h is pens i on benef

i t , Pel l acc ept ed t he per m anent t r ans fert o D uPont w i t h a r etr oact i ve tr ans ferdat e of J anuary1, 1984. I n 1991, Pel l r ece i v ed a docum entfr om D uPont i ndi cat i ng t hathi s adj us t ed s erv ice dat e w as 1975. Pel l w as conce r ned and c ont act ed Dor i s Uhd e , a p r e- r et i r ementcouns el or forD uPont , w ho as s ur ed hi m vi a em ai l t hat hi s adj us t ed s ervi ce d a te w a s “ 2 /1 0 /7 1 , n o t 1 9 7 5 a n d D u P o n t [ w o u ld ] u se th is d a te for[Pel l ’ s ] y ear s of s ervi ce unde rt hei rfor m ul a whe n c a l cul at i ng [ h is ] p e n s io n .” 2
In 1 9 9 2 , P e ll req u e ste d f ro m D u P o n t tw o e stim a tes o f h is pens i on benef

i t s , and ea ch of thes e es t i m at es l i s t ed February10,8 1971, as hi s adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e. I n 199 8 , Pel l r eques t ed a n o th e r p e n s io n e stim a te, a n d th is e stim a te a lso sta ted th a t h is a d ju ste d se rv ice d a te w a s F e b ru a ry1 0 , 1 9 7 1 . In 1 9 9 9 , P e ll r ece i ved a be nefi t r es our ces s t at ement fr om D uPonti ndi cat i ng t hat he had 28. 5 y ear s of s ervi ce a s of A ugus t31, 1999, w hi ch w as cons i s t entw i t h an a d just ed s ervi ce da t e of February10, 1971. E ach e s t i m at e cont ai ned t extat the bot t om of the page i ndi cat i ng t hati tw as an es t i m at e s ubje ctt o r evi ew and i nd i vidual adjustm ents

. In A u g u st 2 0 0 0 , P e ll in q u ire d w h a t h is p e n sio n b e n e f its w oul d be i f he r et i r ed on D ece m ber 31, 2000. O n D ece m ber14, 2000, D uPont i nfor m ed Pel l t hati tw as changi ng hi s adj us t ed s er vi ce da t e t o A ugus t1, 1 9 7 2, t hus r educi ng hi s r ecogni zed se rv ice b y1 .4 7 5 y e a rs. P e ll req u e ste d a re c o n sid e ra tio n o f h is adj us t ed s ervi ce dat e, and D uPont ’ s B enef i tA dm i ni s t r at i on d e p a rtm e n t p ro v id e d h im w ith a f in a l p e n sio n e stim a te v ia e m a il on D ece m ber19, 2000. A cc o rdin g to the fin al esti m ate, P ell w o u ld r ec eive (1) a pension bene fi tforhi s C ons ol empl oym entt hatw oul d be

“ e x ac tl y the sam e . . . as i f C o n so l h ad ca lculated an d p a id it,” and ( 2) a pens i on benef i tforhi s D uPont empl oym entbas ed on h is s e rv ice f

ro m N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 7 5 u n til re tirem e n t, pa rtially o f f se t b yth e p a ym e n ts u n d e r th e C o n so l P lan . T h e e m a il t o P e ll fr om t he B enef

i tA dm i ni s t r at i on depart m ental s o not ed: “A l l of y ou r pr eviou s d ocu m entat i on do es use Adj u s t e d Se r v i c e Dat e ( ASD ) e q u a l t o 2 / 1 0 / 71. H ow ever , A SD i s nota pens i on dat e - i ti s us ed form anybus i nes s s peci fi c uses ( s uch as va cat i on9 e n tit lem e n t, se rv ice a w a rd s, e tc .). T h e A S D is a lso u se d to d e ter m in e v e stin g a n d e lig ib ili ty s er vi ce undert he pl ans , butm ayneed t o be adj us t ed t o r efl ect pens i on benef i t acc rual s ervi ce, a n d in y o u r c a se it i s . . . . [T ]h e e stim a te p ro v id e d to y o u a b o u t eig h t y e a rs a g o . . . . w a s in e rr o r.” U pon r ece i vi ng hi s fi nal pens i on es t i m at e, Pel l r es pond ed tha t h e “ m a yn o t b e a b le to re tir e a s s c h e d u le d .” P ell ap p ea led h is pe n sion esti m ate to the D u P o n t B o ard o f Be n e f i t s a n d P e n s i o n s , wh i c h u p h e l d t h e d e t e r mi n a t i o n . He r et i r ed on M ay31, 2001. I n 2002, Pel l fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tD uPonti n t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D elaw ar e. H e r eques t ed an in j un ct i on orderi ng D uP on tt o p ayt he h i gh er pensi on am ou nt. A ft era bench t r i al , t he D i s t r i ct C our t rul ed t hat Pel l w as ent i t l ed to re lief u n d e r E R IS A b a se d o n th e th e o ry o f e q u itab le e sto p p e l. The Cour tfu r t he rde t e r mi ne d tha t un de r§ 5 02 ( a ) ( 3) of ER I SA (c o d if ied a t 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a )(3 )), P e ll w a s n o t en tit led to r e s t i tu t i o n f

o rt h e p a s tp e n s i o n p a yme n t s t h a t h a d b e e n t o o l o w. T he C ou rt i ssued an i njunct i on requi ri ng D uP on t t o u se A ug ust 1, 1972 as t he servi ce da t e forcal cul at i ng Pel l ’ s futur e pens i on benef i t s . D uPont fi l ed a t i m el yN ot i ce of A ppeal and Pel l fi l ed a tim e lyN o tice o f

C ro ss A p p e a l.T h is iss u e w a s n o t ra is e d in th e D istric t C o u rt. 3 H ow ever , “[ l ] i k e a n yj u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i r ement , s t andi ng cannot be w ai ved. ” P ub. I

nt er es tR es ear ch G r oup of N

. J. , I nc. v. Magnes i um E l ektr on, I

nc. , 1 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 n . 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). “W e have pl enaryr evi ew overques t i ons of s t andi ng. ” Mi l l erv. R i t e Ai d C or

p. , 3 3 4 F

. 3 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ).

10 I I

. DI S CU S S I ON Th e D i s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 3 3 1 a n d ERI SA, 2 9 U. S. C. § 1001 et s eq. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. A

. St andi ng 3
E R IS A p ro v id e s th a t “ [ a ] c iv il a c tio n m a y b e b ro u g h t . . . b ya p a rt ic ip a n t o r b e n e f ic ia ry . . . .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a )( 3 ). A

“ p a r ti c ip a n t” is “ a n ye m p lo y e e o r f o rm e r e m p lo y e e . . . w h o is orm ay become el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve a benef i t of any t ype fr om an empl oy ee be nefi tplan.” 2 9 U

. S. C

. § 1002( 7)

. D uPontar gues th a t th e a c ti o n s o r o m iss io n s f o rm in g th e b a sis o f

P e ll’s c laim t o o k pl ace i n 1983 and 1984 bef or e he w as empl oy ed by D u P o n t. B ec au s e P e ll w as n eith er a “p arti cipa n t” i n n o r a “bene fi ci ary ” of D uPont ’ s pl an att hat t i m e, D uPontas s er t s t hat he doe s nothave s t andi ng underE R I SA ’ s ci vi l enfor cement pr ovi s i on. D u P o n t’ s arg u m e n t d o es n o t t ak e into ac co u n t Pe ll ’s r etr oact i ve D uPont empl oym ent dat e. T he W addel l l et t er , dat ed J anuary13, 1 9 8 4 , m i s l ed Pel l aboutt he amount of hi s pens i on11 b en ef it s. P ell ac ce p ted em p loy m en t w ith D u P o n t after Jan u ary 13, 1984, w i t h a r etr oact i ve ef fec t i ve dat e of January1, 1984. U s i ng Pel l ’ s r etr oact i ve em pl oym ent s t ar t dat e, he r ece i ved the W addel l l ett erdur i ng hi s t i m e as an “e m pl oy ee” of D uPontw ho “m ay b ec o m e eli g ible to rec eive a b en ef it

. ” 2 9 U

. S C

. § 1 0 0 2 (7). T h e r e f o r e , h e h a s s t a n d i n g t o s u e u n d e rE RI S A. In a d d iti o n , the D is tr ic t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t P e ll “r eas onabl yand detr i m ent al l yr el i ed on the i nfor m at i onal s t at ement s es t i m at i ng hi s pens i on benefi t s and s how i ng February10, 1971 as hi s s ervi ce d at e. ” These es t i m at es in d isp u tab lyo c c u rre d w h ile P e ll w a s a D u P o n t em p lo y e e in 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 8 , a n d 1 9 9 9 . T h e re f o re , the e stim a tes – in a d d iti o n to th e W a d d e ll l e tter – c o n f e r sta n d in g u p o n P e ll. B. Equi t a bl e Es t op pe l un de rER I SA T he D i s tr i ctC ourtco rrectl yco n clud ed that P ell is en ti tl ed t o r e l i e f u n d e rE R I S A b a s e d o n a n e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l t h e o r y.
“ On a p p e a l f

r o m a j u d g me n te n t e r e d a f t e ra n o n -

j u r yt r i a l , we r evi ew fi ndi ngs of fac t for cl ear err or and concl us i ons of l aw de novo. ” H

ooven v . E

xxon M obi l Corp. , 465 F. 3d 566, 572 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). A benef i ci arym ay“obt ai n . . . appr opr i at e equi t abl e r e l i ef

. . . t o r edr es s [ER I SA ] vi ol at i ons or . . . to enfor ce a ny p rov isi o n s o f [E R IS A ]. ” 2 9 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 3 2 (a)(3). A b en ef ici ary can make outa cl ai m for“appr opr i at e equi t abl e r el i ef, ” i d. , b ase d o n a th eo ry o f eq u it ab le esto p p el. C u r ci o v. John H ancock Mut

. Li f e I ns . C o. , 3 3 F

. 3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ). “T o succe ed u nd er t his t heo ry of r el i ef, an E R ISA plai nti ff m ust12 es t abl i s h ( 1) a mat er i al rep rese nt at i on, ( 2) r eas onabl e and det r i m ent al r el i ance upon t h e r e p r es ent at i on, and ( 3) extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . ” I d. 1. M at er i al M i s r epr es ent at i on “[A ] ny p rovi s i on of a pl an s ubj ectt o E R I SA t hat es t abl i s hes a benefi t i s a m at er i al t erm of the pl an. ” I d. at237. “[A ] m i s r epr es ent at i on i s m at er i al i f t her e i s a subst ant i al lik e lih o o d th a t itw o u ld m isle a d a re a so n a b le e m p lo y e e in m a k in g a n a d e q u a telyin f o rm e d d e c isio n a b o u t if a n d w h e n to r et i r e. ” F is cherv. P hi l a. E l ec. C o. , 9 9 4 F

. 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned that , underour c a se law , D u P o n t’s re p re se n tatio n s a b o u t P e ll’s pe n sio n b e n e f it c a lc u la tio n d a te w e re m a te ri a l. P el l v. E

. I. D uP on tde N em ou rs & Co. , N o . 0 2 -0 0 0 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 8 6 4 6 0 4 , at * 6 -7 (D . D e l. 2 0 0 6 ). W h e n e v a lu a tin g w h e th e r h e c a n a f f o rd to re tir e , a r eas onabl e empl oy ee w oul d cons i dert he amountof hi s pens i on, w hi ch i n Pel l ’ s cas e depe nded on hi s pens i on benef i tcal cul at i on dat e. P rev iou sly , w e h av e c o n clud ed that rep rese n tat ion s w ere m at er i al w her e theyl ed an e m p l oy ee t o w r ongl ybel i eve that acc i dent al death and di s m ember m enti ns ur ance w as avai l abl e. C u rc io , 3 3 F. 3d at236- 37. W e have al s o det erm i ned that r epr es ent at i ons coul d be mat er i al w her e an e m pl oy er s t at ed that no ear l yr et i r ement i ncent i ves w er e on the hor i zon, w hen i n fac t m a n a g e m e n t w a s c o n s id e ri n g s u c h a p ro g ra m . F is cher , 9 94 F. 2d at 134- 35. A s in C u rc io and F is cher , D u P o n t’ s13 re p re se n tatio n s to P e ll ab o u t h is p e n sio n b e n e f it ca lcu latio n d a te m i s l ed Pel l as he attem p ted t o m ake a n adequa t el yi nfor m ed decis i on abo ut hi s benef i t s. D u P o n t argu es th at i ts m isr ep rese n tat ion s ab o u t Pe ll ’s pens i on cal cul at i ons w er e notm at er i al beca us e P el l di s cover ed th e e rro rs b e f

o re m a k in g h is f

in a l re tirem e n t d e c isio n s. T h is ar gum enti s unper s uas i ve. T he t es tfor m ateri al i t ydoes not dep end on w hen an em ploy ee dis cov ers t he m i sr epresent at i on s. T h e tes t is w h e th e r th e in f o rm a tio n “ w o u ld m isle a d a re a so n a b le empl oy ee i n m aki ng an ade quat el yi nfor m ed dec i s i on” about re tir e m e n t. I

d. In this c ase, i ti s cl eart hatt he i nfor m at i on – m isre p o rtin g a b o u t th e a m o u n t o f a p e n s io n b e n e f

it – w o u ld m i s l ead a r eas onabl e empl oy ee . T h e mi s l eadi ng natur e of the in f o rm a tio n w a s d e m o n stra ted b yth e f a c t th a t P e ll ch a n g e d h is r et i r ement pl ans , r et i ri n g on M ay31, 2001, r athert han D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 0 . T h a t P e ll d isc o v e re d th e e rro r w h ile h e still had t im e to al t erhi s pl ans does notchange t he fa ctt hat D u P o n t’s s tate m e n ts w e re m a ter ial.

2. R eas onabl e and D etr i m ent al R el i ance A s t he phr as e “r eas onabl e and de t r i m ent al r el i ance ” i m pli es, i n o rdert o p revai l , P el l m ustshow (1) reas on ableness a n d (2 ) i n

ju ry. C u rc io , 33 F. 3d at 237. T he D i s t r i ctC o u rt corr ect l yconcl uded thatPel l r eas onabl yand detr i me n t al l yr el i ed on t he W addel l l et t erand the pens i on es t i m at es h e re cei ved t hroug ho ut the 1 99 0s.14 a) R eas onabl e R el i ance W e h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t w h e n a n in d iv id u a l ac ts w ith a p p a re n t au th o rityto d e ter m in e a n e m p lo y e e ’s s tatu s in r el at i ons hi p t o a bene fi tpl an, t he pl an fi duci ary can be re s p o n s ib le f

o r th e in d iv id u a l’ s m a te ri a l m is s ta te m e n ts

. Tayl or v. P eopl es N

at ur alG as C o. , 4 9 F

. 3 d 9 8 2 , 9 8 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). In Tayl or , a form erempl oy ee c l ai m ed that t he Super vi s orof E m pl oy ee B enef

i t s l ed hi m t o bel i eve t hat an ear l y r et i r ement i n c e n tiv e p la n w o u ld a p p ly to h im re tr o a c tiv e ly. I d. a t 985. W hen dec i di ng w hethert he empl oy ee ha d r eas onabl yr el i ed on t he Sup e rv i s o r ’ s s t at ement s , w e i nvoked the doctr i ne of a ppar ent author i t y , w hi ch “( 1) r es ul t s fr om a mani fes t at i on bya per s on th a t an o th e r is h is a g e n t an d (2 ) e x ists o n lyto th e e x ten t th a t it is re a so n a b le f

o r th e th ird p e rso n d e a lin g w ith th e a g e n t to bel i eve thatt he age nti s author i zed. ” I d. at 989 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T he Supervi s ori n Tayl or had app arentauthori t ybecau se ( 1) he had actual author i t y t o per for m m i ni s t er i al funct i ons s uch as advi s i ng empl oy ees of thei rr i ght s and pr epar i ng r epor t s , and ( 2) “the pl an part i ci pant s . . . r eas onabl yb el i eved that[the Super vi s or ] s peci fi cal l yhad the author i ty to couns el pl an par t i ci pant s aboutpos s i bl e amendm ent s t o t he pl an. ” I d. T her efor e, underE R I SA , t he pl an fi duci aryw as r es pons i bl e for th e S u p e rv is o r’ s m a te ri a l m is s ta te m e n ts

. I d. D uPont ar gues t hatPel l’ s rel i ance on t he l et t erfr om W i l l i am W a d d e l l , Con s o l ’ s Di r e c t o ro f Emp l o y e e C om pens at i on and B enef

i t s , w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e W addel l “had no a u th o rit yt o speak for D uP on t

. ” T he D i stri ctC ou rtcorr ect ly15 det erm i ned, how ever , t hatas i n Tayl or , W a d d e ll ac ted w ith “appa r entauthor i t y . ” The t r ans fergui del i nes w er e a m ani fes t at i on b yD uPontt hatW addel l w as i t s agent

. T he gui del i nes s t at ed thatw hen an em p loy ee tr ans ferr ed fr om C ons ol t o D uPont , C ons ol w oul d pr ovi de a l et ter t o t he em p loy ee an d to D u P o n t des cribing in d etail the e m p loy ee ’s st atus w i t h regard t o b oth C on sol and D uP on tben efi tplans. W addel l , t her efor e, act ed as D uPont ’ s agentw hen he w r ot e the lette r to P e ll. I t w as r eas onabl e forPel l t o bel i eve thatW addel l w as au tho ri ze d to sp ea k o n D u P o n t’ s b eh alf. A s the D istri ct C o u rt s t at ed:

“ M r. P e ll rec e iv e d th e L e tter f ro m M r. W a d d e ll, t he D i r ec torof Em pl oy ee Com pens at i on and B enef i t s of hi s empl o y er C ons ol , w hi ch w as o w n ed an d co n tr o ll ed b yD u P o n t .

. . . M r. W a d d e ll .

. . w a s a n a p p ro p ria te p e rso n to pr om ul gat e thati n fo rm ati on . . . . T he Let t er in d ica ted o n its f

a c e th a t ith a d b e e n c o p ied to D uPont m anage m ent , i ncl udi ng t he di vi s i on head o f P ers o n n el an d E m p loy ee R elati o n [s], an d M r. H er r on [a s uper vi s or i n t he Em pl oy ee C om pens at i on B enef

i t s D i vi s i on] t es t i fi ed thathe b eli ev ed that h e rece ived the L ett er in the o rdin ary co u rse o f h is po sit ion

. Itw as re aso n ab le fo r M r. Pel l t o under s t and tha tM r . W addel l w as comm uni cat i ng on behal f of a l l t he s ubp art s of D uPont ’ s corpor at e s t ructur e t he i nfor m at i on t hatS pecifi cal l y , t he dis cl ai m ers i ncluded l ang uag e such a s: 4 “The cal cul at i on i s a broa d es t i m at e . . . . I t does notacc ountfor pr i orpl ans , pr i or di s t r i but i ons , orot heri ndi vi dual adj us t m ent s ”; “Thi s i s an E ST I M A T E and i s nott he fi nal cal cul at i on of y our p e n sio n b e n e f

it .

. . . T h e h is to r ica l d a ta u se d in th is e stim a te ( pens i on bas e ea r ni ngs , FI C A earni ngs , and adj us t ed ser vi ce dat e) ar e subject t o r evi ew and conf i r m at i on att i m e of f

or m al appl i cat i on for pens i on”; “TH I S I S A N E ST I M A T E

. D at a us ed in th is e stim a te a re su b jec t to re v iew a n d c o rre c tio n in d e te rm in in g y o u r b e n e f it a t r e tir e m e n t.” 16 D uPont i nt ended forhi m t o actupon i n deci di ng w h e th e r t o a c c e p t a tr a n s f e r.” P e ll , 2006 W L 2864604 at*9 ( i nt ernal q u o tat i on m arks and c itatio n o m itt e d ). In su m , th e D istric t C o u rt c o r r e c tly concl uded , b as ed on the el ement s of the Tayl orappar ent au tho ri tytest , that P ell rea so n ab ly reli ed o n the W ad d ell let ter. Tayl or , 49 F. 3d at989. T he D i s t r i ctC o u rt found thati tw as al s o r eas onabl e for Pell to r el yon t he pens i on es t i m at es he r ece i ved dur i ng t he 1 9 9 0 s . P e ll , 2006 W L 2864604 at*9

. D u P o n tas s er t s t hat beca us e e a c h e s t i ma t e c o n t ai ned a di s cl ai m ercl ear l yl abel i ng t he cal cul at i on as an “e s t i m at e” t hatw as s ubj ectt o “r evi ew and corr ec ti on, ” Pel l coul d nothave r eas onabl yr el i ed on the

4 e stim a tes . D u P o n t’s arg u m e n t f a ils b e c a u se it d o e s n o t tak e in to acc ountPel l ’ s 1991 emai l excha nge w i t h D or i s U hde, a D uPont pr e- r et i r ement couns el or . I n t hat excha nge, Pel l i nqui r ed w hat17 dat e w oul d be us ed forhi s pens i on cal cu l at i on, and U hde r epl i ed:

“ C o n so l p e n sio n w ill b e c a lcu late d o n th e ir for m ul a and thei rSS offse t

. Y ouradj us t ed se rv ice d a te is 2 /1 0 /7 1 n o t 1 9 7 5 a n d D u P o n t w ill u se th is d a te f

o r y o u r y e a rs o f se rv ice u n d e r th e ir for m ul a w hen ca l cul at i ng y ourpens i on. T he

‘ Pens i on’ bookl eti n y ourgr een Benefi t s B i nder expl ai ns t he D u Pont for m ul as ; how ever , not hi ng w ri tte n re o f

f s e ts a s e a c h w o u ld b e d if f e re n t.” A f terth is e x c h a n g e , P e ll’s su b se q u e n t p e n sio n e stim a tes (in 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 8 , an d 1 9 9 9 ) liste d 1 9 7 1 a s th e d a te f ro m w h ich h is benef i tw oul d be ca l cul at ed. F o r th e sa m e re a so n s th a t itw a s re a so n a b le f o r P e ll t o r el yon the W addel l l et t er , i tw as r eas onabl e forhi m t o r el yon U hde’ s appar ent author i t y t o act on D uPont ’ s behal f. B ygi vi ng U h d e re sp o n sib ili tyf

o r a ss istin g D u P o n t em p lo y e e s w ith th e ir re tirem e n t p lan n in g , D u P o n t m a n if e ste d th a t s h e w a s its a g e n t. See Taylor , 49 F. 3d at 989. I t w as r eas onabl e for Pel l t o bel i eve t hatU hde had the author i t yt o det erm i ne hi s adj us t ed s ervi ce d a te

. I d. M or eover , i t w as r eas onabl e for Pel l t o bel i eve, goi ng fo rw ard , that h is co n v ersa ti o n w ith U h d e h ad set t h e re co rd s t r ai ght

. H avi ng cl ar i fi ed hi s ad just ed s ervi ce da t e ( ors o he t hought ) , Pel l r eas onabl y bel i eved t hat hi s empl oym entr ecor ds had bee n corr ect ed and tha t h is pens i on benef i tw oul d be cal cul at ed bas ed on the 1971 dat e.18 If w e w e re to a c c e p t D u P o n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t P e ll co u ld n o t re ly o n h is pe n sio n e stim a tes , em p lo y e e s s u c h a s P e ll w o u ld be requ ire d to conti nu al l yqu est i on t heirben efi t s cal culat i on s, even i f theyagr eed w i t h t hei rempl oy er s ’ es t i m at es . W e dec l i ne to f o rm u lat e su ch a b u rde n so m e ru le. In th e c o n text o f P ell ’s excha nge w i t h U hde and hi s s ubs equent pens i on es t i m at es t hat re f lec ted a 1 9 7 1 a d

ju ste d se rv ice d a te, it w a s re a so n a b le f o r h im t o r el yon t he es t i m at es , des pi t e thei rdi s cl ai m erl anguage .

b) D etr i m ent al R el i ance In order t o sho w detr i m ent, or i njury , a plai nti ff m ust demonst r at e thathe re l i ed upon t he em pl oy er ’ s r epr es ent at i ons in a w a y t h a t l a te r l e d to in ju ry. C u rc io , 3 3 F .3 d a t 2 3 7 . P e ll d e trim e n tallyre lied o n th e W a d d e ll l e tter w h e n h e d e c id e d to t r ans ferper m anent l yfrom C o ns ol t o D uPont

. H e di d not fin ali ze the tran sfe r un ti l after h e h ad rec eive d the lett er’s confi r m at i on of hi s pens i on benef i tcal cul at i on dat e. Pel l w as in ju re d b e c a u se h e a c c e p ted a lo w e r sa lar ya n d h e p e rm a n e n tly m ov ed h i s fam i l y t o D el aw are, despit e con cerns abou tt he co st of li ving and t he q uali t yof h i s chi l dren’s schoo l s. D uPont ar gues t hat Pel l di d not detr i m ent al l y r el y on t he pens i on es t i m at es , beca us e he di d not t ake a nyact i ons bas ed on t he i nfor m at ion theycont ai ned. H ow ever , ourcas e l aw re c o g n iz e s th a t re f

ra in in g f ro m tak in g a c tio n c a n c o n stitu te detr i m ent al r el i ance . I n C u rc io , w e s ai d t hatthe pl ai nt i ffs ’ detr i m ent al r el i ance w as “gi vi ng up an opportuni t y t o acc om m odat e thei ri ns ur ance needs t hr ough an i ndepende nti ns ur ance carri er. ” 33 F. 3d atI ti s r eas onabl e t o bel i eve thatPel l , an engi neerw i t h a 5 Ph. D

. , an M B A , and an e m pl oym enthist or yw i t h C ons ol and D uPont , coul d have f

ound al t ernat i v e e mpl oym entorcoul d have o p e n e d h is o w n c o n s u ltin g b u s in e s s . C f. Sm i th v. H

art f ord Ins. G r oup , 6 F. 3d 131, 137 (3d C i r . 1993) ( r ej ect i ng t heor i es of detr i m ent al r e l i ance beca us e the pl ai nt i ffs pr oduced no e vi dence th a t th e a c tio n s th e yw o u ld h a v e tak e n w e re re a listica lly p o ssible). 19 237. I n Sm i th v. H

ar t f od I ns ur ance G r oup , 6 F. 3d 131, 137 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , w e conc l uded thatt her e w as detr i m ent al r el i ance , even though t he r el i ance coul d be expr es s ed as a fa il ur e t o act (n o t co n v e rtin g to a n in d iv id u a l h e a lth c a re p o licyth a t w o u ld have pr ovi ded ade quat e covera g e) oran ac t i on ( s i gni ng up for a n e w g ro u p h e a lth c a re p lan th a t p ro v id e d in a d e q u a te c o v e r a g e )

. Du P o n t ’ s a r g u me n t d o e s n o t c o n v i n c e u s t o d r a w a new di s t i nct i on betwee n a c t i v e a n d i n a c t i v e d e t r i m ent al r el i ance . Pel l r el i ed t o h is det r i m enton t he pens i on es t i m at es he recei ved i n the 19 90 s by refr ai ning fr om t aking cert ai n acti on s. Pel l t es t i fied that i f he ha d know n how hi s pens i on w oul d be c a lcu late d , h e w o u ld h a v e e x p lo re d w h e th e r he c o u ld re tu rn to C ons ol , g et a n o the rj ob w i t h a bett erpens i on, orr et i r e s ooner a n d sta rt a c o n su lti n g b u sin e ss . H e w a s in ju re d b e c a u se h e d id n o tt a k e a n yo f

t h e s e a c t i o n s t h a tmi g h th a v e b e n e f i t t e d h i m. 5 P e ll h a s s h o w n th a t th e se c o n d e lem e n t o f e q u itab le e sto p p e l – re a so n a b le a n d d e trim e n ta l r e lian c e – is p re se n t in t hi s cas e. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, Pel l demonst r at ed t hathi s r el i ance on t he W addel l l et t erand the 1990s pens i on20 e s tim a te s w a s re a s o n a b le a n d c a u s e d h im in ju ry. S e e C u rc io , 33 F. 3d at237. 3. E xt r aor di naryC i r cumst ance s T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e term ined that P ell m et th e third el ement of the equi t abl e es t oppel t heory , concl udi ng t hatt he ci r cumst ance s of hi s cas e ar e extr aor dinary and thus w arr ant r el i ef unde r29 U

. S. C

. § 1132. D uPont cl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed, beca us e a f i ndi ng of extr aor di naryci r cumst an ces u su all y r es ul t s fr om t he empl oy er ’ s act s of bad f ai t h and not from m ere r epo rt i ng err ors. In th e p ast, w e h av e d eterm ined that ex tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x is te d in a v a ri e ty o f f a c tu a l s c e n a ri o s . Kur

z v. P hi l a. E l ec. C o. (Ku rz II ) , 96 F. 3d 1544, 1553 ( 3d C i r . 1996) (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). E x tr ao rdin ary circu m stan ce s ca n arise w h ere there are “a ff

irm ati v e ac ts o f fra u d , ” w h ere there is a “n etw o rk o f m is re p re s e n ta tio n s . . . o v e r a n e x te n d e d c o u rs e o f d e a lin g ,” o r w h e re p a rt ic u la r p la in tif f s a re e s p e c ia lly v u ln e ra b le

. I d. I n t hi s ca se, t he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed i n Pel l ’ s favor beca us e of D uPont ’ s “r epea t ed mi s r epr es ent at i ons overan ext ended c our s e of de al i ngs . ” P e ll , 2006 W L 2864604 at*10 ( ci t i ng Ku rz II, 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 3 ; Sm ith , 6 F. 3d 131)

. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned: “[R]e peat ed mi s r epr es ent at i ons overan ext ended cou r s e o f d e a l i n g s b e t wee n a n e mpl o y e r a n d an empl o y ee ar e s uffi ci entt o demonst r at e the exi s t ence of ext r aor di naryci r cumst ance s , w hen,21 as her e, i ti s cl eart hatt he em pl oy ee ha s been d il igen t i n inq u ir in g into the em p loy er’s r epr es ent at i ons , i n s eeki ng cl ar i fi cat i ons about t hos e r epr es ent at i ons , an d i n obt ai ni ng re a f f ir m a tio n s o f

th o s e re p re s e n ta tio n s .” P e ll , 2006 W L 2864604 at*10. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C ou rtt hat there w ere ext raor dinar yci rcum st ances. I n t he Kurz cas es , K ur z and otherempl oy ees cl ai m ed that t hei rempl oy erhad made m at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i ons aboutt he te rm s o f a n e a rl yre tir e m e n t p la n . Kur z v. P hi l a. E l ec. C o. (Kurz I ) , 994 F

. 2 d 136, 139 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. T he empl oy ees had at t ended i n d i v i dual r et i r ementi nt ervi ew s i n w hi ch s om e of them as ked w hether change s t o t he re t i r ement pl an w er e fort hcomi ng. I d. T he empl oy er ’ s r et i r ementcoun sel or s ans w er ed i n t he negat i ve, buti n fac t , m anage m entw as act i vel ycons i der i ng an e a rl yre tir e m e n t in c e n tiv e p la n . I d. at137- 38. T he pl an w as in stitu ted sh o rtlya f

ter th e e m p lo y e e s re tired a n d d id n o t ap p ly to th e m re tr o a c tiv e ly. I

d. at138. W e conc l uded thatdes pi t e the inac cu rate inf

o rm ati o n g iven b y the reti rem en t co u n selo rs, there w e re n o e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Ku rz II, 96 F. 3d at1553- 54. W e expl ai ned: “Ther e i s no conducts ugges t i ng t hat[the empl oy er ] s oughtt o pr ofi tatt he expe ns e of i t s emplo y ees , no s how i ng o f repe at ed mi s r epr es ent at i ons overt i m e, [and] no s ugges ti o n t hatpl ai nt i ffs ar e part i cul ar l yvul ner abl e. ” I d. at 1553. D uPont ar gues t hat Pel l ’ s cas e i s l i ke Kurz , an d “ sim p le E R I SA r epor t i ng err or s ordi s cl os ur e vi ol at i ons , ” i d. , do not co n s t i tut e extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . C ont r aryt o D uPont ’sD uPont ar gues t hat t he s peci al vul ner abi l i t yof the Sm ith 6 pl ai nt i ff, w ho had s uffe r ed a c er ebr al hemorrhag e and nee ded 22 a r g u m e n t, Kurz is d istin g u ish a b le f ro m th is c a se . D u P o n t d id notcomm i ta s i m pl e ER I SA r epor t i ng err or . I ns t ead, i tm ade aff i r m at i ve mi s r epr es ent at i ons to Pel l overan ext ended pe r i od of t i m e. T hi s cas e i s t her efor e notl i ke Kurz , w her e the m isre p re se n tatio n to e a c h e m p lo y e e to o k p lac e in a sin g le c o n v e rs a tio n . I

d. Pel l ’ s cas e, as t he D i s t r i ctC our t concl uded, i s m or e l i ke Sm ith

. 6 F. 3d 131. I n Sm ith , t he empl oy ee’ s hus band s ought i nfor m at i on r egar di ng t he empl oy er ’ s new heal t h i ns ur ance pl an an d rec ei ved mul t i pl e i nacc ur at e as s ur ance s t hatt he cove r age h is w i f e n e e d e d w o u ld b e a v a ila b le

. I d. a t1 3 4

- 3 5

. We concl uded that on r emand, “a f act fi ndercoul d fi nd .

. . [that extr aor di nary ] ci r cum s t ance s ar e es t abl i s hed, i n l i ghtof the [empl o y e r ’ s ] r e p e a t e d o r a l a n d wr i t t en mi s r epr es ent at i ons t o [the h u sb an d ], h is dil igen ce in att em p ti n g to o b tai n ac cu rate an sw ers r egar di ng hi s w i fe’ s cover age, as evi d enced byhi s per s i s t ent q u e s t i o n i n g o f

[ h u m a n r e s o u r c e s a n d i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y] per s onnel , and t he i m m ens e cover age expens es ats t ake. ” I d. at 142. L i ke the Sm ith pl ai nt i ffs , Pe l l w as “di l i gent ” and e ngaged i n “per s i s t en tques t i oni ng” aboutt he s i gni fi cantbenef i t s at s t ake. R el y i ng on Sm ith , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned t hat D uP on t ’s r e p e a ted a f f ir m at i ve m i sr epresent at i on s, co m b ined w ith P ell ’s d ilige n ce , d em o n str ate tha t th ere are extr aordi naryci rcum st ances. 6s ki l l ed i npat i entnur s i ng care, w as cruci al t o t he fi ndi ng of extr aordinar yci r cumst ance s . 6 F. 3d at133. O urs ubs equent cas e l aw s how s t hat t he vul ner abi l i t yof the pl ai nt i ff i s j us tone fa ctor a n d is no t nec essa ry to d em o n str ate e x tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See , e. g. , I nt ’ l U ni on, U ni t ed A ut o. , A er os

pace & Agri c. I

m pl em ent W orker s of A m . v. Ski nner E ngi ne C o. , 188 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). 23 I n s um , w e agr ee w it h the D i s t r i ctC our tt hatPel l has es t abl i sh ed the el ement s of an e qui t abl e es t oppel cl ai m under E R I SA

. D uPont m ade materi al m i s r epr es ent at i ons aboutt he amount of Pel l ’ s pens i on b en ef i t , Pel l r eas onabl yand d etri m en tal ly reli ed o n tho se m isr ep rese n tat ion s, an d D u P o n t’ s in a c c u ra c ies o v e r a n e x ten d e d c o u rse o f d e a lin g c o n stitu te extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng r el i ef. C

. R emedi es H avi ng det erm i ned thatPel l i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde r E R I SA bas ed on an e qui t abl e es t oppel t heory , w e tur n t o t he par t i es ’ di s put es over r emedi es . D uPont ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s i nj unct i on w as an i m per m i s s i bl e form of r el i ef unde r E R I SA

. I n addi t i on, D uPontas s er t s tha tt he r el i ef Pel l w as gr ant ed goes bey ond t he t erm s of the pens i on pl an and thus cons t i tut es an i m perm i s s i bl e “i nfor m al amendm ent ” t o t he pl an. P e ll, f o r h is p a rt, a r g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld have a w ar ded hi m rest i tut i on forhi s pas tundul yl ow pens i on benef i tpaym ent s . H e also cl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed24 w h e n it d e ter m in e d th a t D u P o n t sh o u ld c a lcu late h is b e n e f its bas ed on the 1972 adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e r athert han 1971. D e ter m in in g w h a t re m e d ies a re a v a ilab le u n d e r a sta tu te i s a ques t i on of s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on t hatr equi r es d e novo re v ie w . D a n iel S . v. S c ra n to n S c h . D ist. , 2 3 0 F

. 3d 90, 97 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). T h ere fo re, w e re v iew d e n o v o the D is tri ct C o u rt ’s gr antof an i nj unct ion and i t s deni al of r es t i tut i on forpas tl ow b e n e f i t p a ym e n ts

. I

d. Th e Di s t r i c tCou r t ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n t h at 1972 i s t he appro p r i at e adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e i s a mi xed c o n c lu s io n o f

la w a n d f

a c t. See I

nt er f ai th C m t y. O r g. v. H oneywel lI

nt ’ l , I nc. , 3 9 9 F

. 3 d 2 4 8 , 2 6 9

- 7 0 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 )

. We b re a k d o w n su c h c o n c lu sio n s in to th e ir c o m p o n e n ts a n d a p p ly th e a p p ro p ria te s tan d a rd o f re v ie w to e a c h c o m p o n e n t. U ni ver s alMi ner al

s , I nc. v. C

. A

. Hughes & Co. , 669 F. 2d 98, 103 ( 3d C i r . 1981)

. “W e m us t acc ept t he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs of h i st ori cal or narr at i ve fa ct s u nles s theyare cl earl yerr on eou s, butw e mustexer ci s e a pl enaryr evi ew of the tr i al cour t ’ s choi ce and i nterpret at i on of legal precepts and i t s appli cat i on of those pr ece pt s t o t he hi s t or i cal fac t s . ” I d. T he D i s t r i ct C our t corr ect l yconcl uded thatan i nj unct i on w as a n ap p rop ri ate rem ed y , b u t iterred w h en itref u sed to aw ard P ell resti tuti o n fo r his p ast u n d u lylow p en sion b en e f it s. In addi t i on, t he C our terr ed w hen i tdet erm i ned that1972, not 1971, w as t he appr opr i at e adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e.

1. I nj un c t i ve Rel i e f Unde rER I SA D u P o n t ar g u e s th a t th e in ju n c tio n re q u ire s it to p a yP e ll m or e moneyt han i tw oul d have otherw i s e. D uPontcl ai m s t hat25 th e in ju n c tio n is th e re f

o re a leg a l ra th e r th a n a n e q u itab le r e me d y , a n d t h a ts u c h r e l i e f i s n o ta v a i l a b l e u n d e rE RI S A. In lig h t o f

E R IS A ’s d e taile d e n f

o rc e m e n t sc h e m e , co u rts a re “ e sp e c ially re lu c tan t to

. . . [c re a te] re m e d ies n o t sp e c if ica lly author i zed byi t s t ext

. ” G r eat

- W es tLi f e & A nnui t

y I ns . C o. v. Knuds on , 534 U

. S. 204, 209 (2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. E R I SA pr ovides fort he i s s uance of i njunct i on s i n o rdert o g rant“app ropri at e equ i t able r el i ef” to a g g ri e v e d e m p lo y e e s s u c h a s P e ll. I d. ( q u o t i n g 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1132( a)( 3) )

. T he Supr eme C our thas r eas oned that “[e ] qui t abl e r el i ef m us tm ean s om ethi ngl es s t han a llr el i ef, ” and th e re f o re it h a s e x p la in e d th a t § 1 1 3 2 (a )(3 ) a u th o riz e s o n ly “thos e ca t egor i es of r el i ef thatw er e typ ica lly a v a ilab le in equi t y . ” I

d. at 210 ( quot i ng Mert ens v. Hew i t tA ssocs. , 50 8 U. S. 248, 256, 258 n. 8 ( 1993) )

. T hus , t he m ai n ques t i on i n as s es s i ng i nj unct i ons s uch as the one be for e us i s w hethert he i nj unct i on c o n stitu tes a p e rm iss ib le e q u itab le r e m e d yo r a n im p e rm iss ib le le g a l o n e . S e e Ei c h o r n v . A T&T C or p. , 484 F. 3d 644, 654- 55 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). G reat -W est coul d be re ad as pr ovi di ng fac i al s uppor tfor D uP on t ’s argum ent that Pel l ’s i njunct i on actuall y con st i tutes a l egal , r ather t han an equi t abl e, r emedy

. B ut the i nj unct i on e f f e c tiv e lyc re a tes a c o n stru c tiv e tru st o n p a rticu lar p ro p e rtyin D uPont ’ s pos s es s i on, r ather t han i m pos i ng per s onal l i abi l i t yon D uPont

. T her efor e, as s ubs equentSupr eme C our tcas e l aw confi r m s , t he i nj unct i on fal l s w i t hi n t he type of e qui t abl e r el i ef t hat ER ISA authori zes.26 I n G reat -W

est , M rs. K n u d so n w a s re n d e re d q u a d rip leg ic in a n a u to a c c id e n t, an d h e r h u sb a n d ’s e m p lo y e r-pr ov i de d h e a lth p la n p a i d h e r m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s . 5 3 4 U .S . a t 2 0 7 . A re im b u rse m e n t p ro v isio n g a v e th e p la n th e rig h t to re c o v e r its benef i tpaym ent s fr om M r s . K nuds on i f s he r ecove r ed them f ro m a th ir d p a rt y . I

d. A ft ert he K nuds ons r ece i ved a $650, 000 s et t l ement fr om t he aut o m an u factur er , G r eat
- W es ti ni t i at ed l egal ac ti o n underE R I SA t o enfor ce the r ei m bur s ement p ro v is io n . I

d. at 207- 08. T he Supr eme C our texami ned w hether t he r emedyG r eat
- W es ts oughtw oul d have been a vai l abl e fr om a courtof equi t y “[i ] n t he day s of the di vi ded benc h. ” I d. at212. T h e C o u rt n o ted th a t eq u itab le r e stitu tio n w a s h isto ric a lly a v a ilab le “ w h e re m o n e yo r p ro p e rtyid e n tifie d a s b e lo n g in g in g o o d c o n sc ien c e to th e p lain tiff c o u ld c lea rlyb e tra c e d to par t i cul ar funds orpr oper t yi n t he def endant ’ s pos s es s i on. ” I d. at213. T he C our tdeni ed r el i ef t o G r eat
- W es tbeca us e the K nuds ons ’ s et t l ement pr ocee ds w er e not i n t hei rpos s es s i on, but had bee n di s t r i but ed t o at t or ney s , a Speci al N eeds T rust, and o th e r p a rt ie s . I

d. at 214. T her efor e, “[t ] he kind o f res t i tut i on [G r eat
- W es ts oughtw as ]

. . . notequi t abl e – the i m pos i t i on of a cons t ruct i ve t rus t or equi t abl e l i en on par t i cul ar pr oper t y– but l egal – t he i m pos i t i on of per s onal li ab il it yfort he bene fi t s t hat [G r eat
- W es t ] confe r r ed upon [the K nuds ons ]

. ” I d. Ser ebof f v. Mi d A t l ant i c Medi cal Ser vi ces , 547 U

. S. 356 ( 2006) , fol l ow ed and a m pl i fi ed upon G reat -W est
. S e re b o

ff ’s basi c fa ct s ar e i dent i cal t o G reat -W est
. E R I SA pl an benef i ci ar i es (t h e S ere boffs ) w er e i nj ur ed i n an aut o acc i dent a n d re c e iv e d a s e ttle m e n t f ro m a th ir d p a rt y . I

d. at 359- 60. T he27 heal t h pl an ( M i d A t l ant i c) t ook l egal act i on t o cl ai m par t of the s e ttle m e n t p ro c e e d s p u rs u a n t to a re im b u rs e m e n t p ro v is io n . I d. a t3 6 0

. Th e f

a c t s d i f f e r e d f r o m G reat -W

est i n t hat the part i es ent er ed i nt o a “st i pul at i on . . . underw hi ch the Ser eboff s agr eed t o pr es erve $74, 869. 37 of the s et t l ementfunds i n an i nves t m ent acc ount , unt i l t he [D i s t r i ct ] C our t rul e[d] on t he m er i t s of [the] cas e and al l appea l s . . . [w er e] exhaus t ed. ” I d. at360 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T h e S u p rem e C o u rt d e c id e d th a t th e “ im p e d im e n t to c h a ra c ter izin g th e r e lief in [ G re a t-W

est ] as equi t abl e [w as ] notpr es ent

. ” I d. at362. B ec au se th e f

u n d s in q u e s tio n h ad b ee n set aside an d w ere speci fi cal l yi den t i fi able i n the Serebo ffs’ i nv est m ent accoun t s, M id A tlan tic c o u ld r e c o v e r th ro u g h th e tra d iti o n a l eq u itab le re m e d ie s o f

c o n s tru c tiv e tru s t o r e q u ita b le lie n . I d. at362- 63. S e re b o ff s how s th a ta r emedycannotbe cl as s i fi ed as l egal m e re ly b e c a u s e it c o n s is ts o f p a ym e n ts

. I

d. A r emedyi nvol vi ng paym ent s i s perm i s s i bl e so l ong as t hos e pay m ent s w oul d have h is to ri c a lly b e e n a v a ila b le in c o u rt s o f e q u ity. I d. I n fac t , pr i or t o S e re b o ff , w e had al r eadydet erm i ned thatE R I SA r el i ef may in c lu d e p a ym e n ts o f

m o n e y i f th o se p a ym e n ts a re p ro p e rly c h a ra c te ri z e d a s a n e q u ita b le re m e d y . Skr etvedt v. E

. I

. D uP ont D e N em ou rs , 372 F. 3d 193, 211- 12 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. I n Skr etvedt , w e not ed: “[Som e have ] per cei ved i n G reat -W est a per se pr onounceme n t tha tw her e a pl ai nt i ff s eeks an aw ar d t hatul t i m at el yi nvol ves m oney . . . , s uch an aw ar d i s a cl ai m for l egal r el i ef and is not avai l abl e under§ [1132] ( a) ( 3) ( B )

. . . . O ur re a d in g , h o w e v e r, is th a t G reat -W est d i d n ot28 ad o p t suc h a ru le. Instea d , the S u p rem e C o u rt in d ica ted th a t, to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a sp e c if ic f o rm o f u n d e rly in g re lief

re q u e ste d is a v a ilab le under§ [1132] ( a) ( 3) ( B ) , w e mu st c ons i der w hether[the] r el i ef w as t ypi cal l yavai l abl e atl aw o r i n eq u ity an d , in the ca se o f re sti tuti o n ary re lief , w h e th e r th e r e lief

re q u e ste d w a s in f

a c t a f o rm o f e q u ita b le re s titu tio n .” I d. In th is ca se, the reli ef is an injun cti o n to ca lculate P ell ’s futur e pens i on paym ent s us i ng an ear l i er adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e. I nj unct i ons ar e l ega l rem edi es i f they“compel t he paym entof m oneypas tdue undera con tr ac t, ors peci fi c per for m ance of a p a st d u e m o n e tar yo b lig a tio n , [ a re m e d y th a t] w a s n o t typ ica lly avai l abl e in equi t y . ” G reat -W est , 534 U

. S. at210- 11. T he i nj unct i on i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t i n t hi s cas e i s forw ar dl ooki ng and ent i t l es Pel l t o an am ount of m oney t hat cannotbe c a lcu late d w ith sp e c if

icity (sin c e it i s u n k n o w n h o w lo n g h e w ill su rv iv e a n d b e e n tit led to b e n e f its). T h e re f

o re , th e in

ju n c tio n is a n e q u i t a b l e r e me d yt h a ti s p e r mi s s i b l e u n d e rE RI S A. In a d d iti o n to a ttac k in g th e f o rm o f th e re m e d yth a t P e ll r ece i ved, D uPont ar gues t hat E R I SA pr ovi des a ca us e of a ct i on onl yt o r ecove rt he bene fi t s t hat are d u e undert he t erm s of an e m p lo y e e b e n e f

it p lan . D u P o n t s ta te s th a t b e c a u se P e ll i s al r eadyr ece i vi ng t he pens i on paym entt o w h ich he i s ent i t l ed u n d e rt h e t e r ms o f t h e p l a n , h e i s wi t h o u tr e l i e f u n d e rE RI S A. R el y i ng on G r e at

- W

e st , 534 U

. S. 204, and S e re b o ff , 54 7 U. S. 356, D uPont cl ai m s that an em pl oy ee s uch as Pel l cannot29 r ece i ve r el i ef be y ond t hat s peci fi ed byt he pl an t erm s . D uPont arg u es th at the D istri ct C o u rt ’s injun cti o n ren d ers D u P o n t’ s err o n e o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o Pe l l a n i mpe r mi s s i b l e “ i n f o r mal a m e n d m e n t” to th e p la n . C onf erv. C us t om E ng’

g C o. , 952 F. 2d 4 1 , 4 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). W e h a v e p re v io u slyc o n sid e re d a n d re jec ted th is a rg u m e n t. See I

n r e U nis ys C or p. R et i r ee Med. B enef

i tER I SA Li t ig. , 57 F. 3d 1255, 1264- 65 ( 3d C i r . 1995)

. A l t hough U nis ys deal t wi t h a b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y d u t y c l a i m, o u r r a t i o n a l e for p ro v id in g re lief

b e y o n d a p lan ’s te rm s e n c o m p a ss e d e q u itab le e sto p p e l as w e ll:

“ Im p o sin g u p o n a n e m p lo y e r a f id u c iar yd u tyin t hi s case does nott hr eat en orcontr adi ctour w el l

- es t abl i s hed pol i cydi s favor i ng i nfor m al pl an amendm ent s . . . . [O ] urequi t abl e theor i es of r el i ef unde r E R I SA ( br eac h of fi duci arydut yand es t oppel ) ar e notto be cons t rued as confl i ct i ng w i t h ourpr ece dentpr ecl udi ng or al ori nfor m al am end m ents t o E R ISA ben efi tplans. T he ret i rees here do no targue t hat U nis y s’ m i s r epr es ent at i ons m odi fi ed t hei rr et i r ee medi cal benef i t pl ans . R ather , forpurpos es of thei rbr eac h o f f i d u c i a r y [ d u t y] c l a i m , t h e y a s s u me t he pl ans d id n o t co n tra c tu a llyv e st b e n e f its, an d c laim instead that the c o m p an yb rea ch ed it s fid u ciary du t y b y l e a d i n g e mpl o y e e s t o b e l i e v e t h a tt he pl ans di d. T hi s cl ai m i s di s t i nctfr om a cl ai m for b e n e f its u n d e r t h e ter m s o f

th e p lan b e c a u se itSubse quentt o G r eat

- W es tLi f e & A nnui t

y I ns . C o. v. 7 Knuds on , 534 U

. S. 2 0 4 , 210 ( 2002) , w e have confi r m ed the 30 r equi r es di ffe r entpr oof .

. . t han w oul d be r equ ir ed fora contr actcl ai m t hatt he pl ans had been modi fi ed. I n r ecogni zi ng t he r et i r ees ’ br eac h of f id u c iar y[ d u ty ] c laim h e re , w e d o n o t in ten d to cr eat e a pr ece dentforanyben ef ici aryt o m ake c la im s b e y o n d th o s e p ro v id e d in a p la n .” I d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). A s i n U nis ys , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t hi s cas e “a s s um ed” or acknow l edged thatthe p lan t erm s di d notent i t l e Pel l t o t he h ig h e r p e n s io n a m o u n t. P e ll , 2006 W L 2864604 at*14. T he C ou rt e xp l ai ned : “A s [Pell has] m ett he elem ents of [ his ] equi t abl e es t oppel cl ai m , i t i s appr opr i at e t o es t op D uPontfr om assert in g its ri gh tt o rel yon t he term s of t he D uP on tP l an as a b a sis f o r a ss e rtin g th a t . .

. P e ll’s a d ju ste d se rv ice d a te is N ovember 1, 1975. ” I

d. T hus , t h e D is t r i ctC our t ’ s i nj unct i on nei t her r ew r ot e nori nfor m al l yamended t he pl an. T he in ju n c tio n lef

t th e p la n in ta c t w h ile a c k n o w led g in g th a t eq u ity re q u ire s D u P o n t to p a yP e ll a h ig h e r p e n sio n a m o u n t. O urcas e l aw cl ear l yes t abl i s hes t he r i ghtof a pl ai nt i ff s uch as Pel l t o r ece i ve r el i ef be y ond t he benefi t s s peci fi ed i n t he pl an, and the D i s t ri ct C our ti nj unct i on di d notr ew r i t e or i nfo rm al l yam end t he p l an. D uP on t ’s argum ent fai l s. 7vi abi l it y of the equi t abl e es t oppel t heoryt o obt ai n r el i ef f or m is re p re s e n ta tio n s a b o u t th e a v a ila b ility o f b e n e f its

. See H ooven v . E

xxon M obi lC or p. , 4 6 5 F .3 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). E i chor n v. A T&T C or p. , 4 8 4 F .3 d 6 4 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), is n o t to th e c o n tra ry . In th a t c a se , A T & T so ld a su b sid iar y , w ith t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e s u b s i d i a r y ’ s e m p l o y e e s we r e n o l o n g e rAT &T e m p lo y e e s . I

d. at646- 47. T h ese empl oy ees l at eral l eged that t heyw er e w ron g ful l ypr event ed fr om r etur ni ng t o A T & T and regai ning t heirenti t l em ent t o A T & T pen si on ben efi t s becau se o f a “ n o -h ir e ” a g re e m e n t. I d. a t 6 4 7

. T h e e m p lo y e e s so u g h t to be a war d e d t h e b e n e f

i t s t h e y wou l d h a v e r e c e i v e d h ad t hey re m a in e d A T & T e m p lo y e e s . I d. W e conc l uded thatbeca us e the pl ai nt i ffs w er e n o t s eeki ng t o enfor ce the t erm s of the pl an, re lie f w a s n o t a v a ila b le u n d e r 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a )( 1 )( B ). I d. at 651- 53. U nl i ke Pel l , t he E i cho rn pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques t ed r el i ef w as bas ed on a hypot het i cal s i tuat i on ( t he poss i bi l i t yt hatbutfort he no- hi r e agr eement , t hey coul d have r etur ned t o A T & T ) and w as a c la im f o r b e n e f its th a t th e y h a d n o t e a rn e d

. I d. H er e, Pel l w as a D u P o n t e m p lo y e e a n d h a d e a rn e d p e n sio n b e n e f its. T h e lo g ic of E i cho rn does notaff ectourconcl us i on t hat in t hi s cas e the r e l i e f P e l l r e q u e s t s i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e rE RI S A. 31 2 . R e stitu tio n f

o r P a st L o w P e n sio n B e n e f it P a ym e n ts H avi ng det er m i ned thati tw as perm i s s i bl e fort he D i s t r i ct C our tt o o r d e rDuPo n tt o p a ya h i g h e rp e n s i o n b e n e f i tgoi ng forw ar d, w e m us t exami ne w hether t he C our tcorr ect l ydecl i ned to o rd e r D u P o n t to p a y re stitu tio n f o r th e u n d u lylo w p a ym e n ts P e ll h a d a lre a d yre c e iv e d . B e c a u se th e p e n sio n f u n d s a re h e ld i n t ru s tb y D u P o n ta n d t h u s a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n ti f

i a b l e p r o p e r t y,32 t he D i s t r i ct C our t err ed w hen i tdet erm i ned thatr es t i tut i on w as notavai l abl e. “[A ] pl ai nt i ff [ m ay ] s eek r es t i tut i on in e q u ity , o rd in a rily in the fo rm o f a co n stru cti v e trust or a n eq u it ab le l ien, w h ere m o n e yo r p ro p e rtyid e n tifie d a s b e lo n g in g in g o o d c o n sc ien c e to t he pl ai nt i ff [ can] cl ear l ybe traced t o par t i cul arfunds or pr oper t yi n t he def

endant ’ s pos s es s i on. ” G reat -W est , 53 4 U. S. a t 2 1 3

. T h e d if

f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e p e n sio n p a ym e n ts P e ll actual l yr ece i ved and the paym ent s he s houl d have r ece i ved bel ongs, “i n good cons ci ence , ” t o hi m . T her efor e, Pel l can r ece ive r es t i tut i onarypaym ent s fort he di ffe r ence i f the funds ca n “c learlyb e trace d to p a rti cu lar fu n d s” in D u P o n t’ s p o s s e s s io n . I

d. E R I SA s ay s : “Exceptas pr ovi ded .

. . , al l as s et s of an em p loy ee b e n e fitp lan s h all b e h eld in tru st byo n e o r m o re t rus t ees . ” 29 U

. S. C

. § 1103( a)

. T her efor e, E R ISA pl an funds a re , as a m at t er of l aw , “held i n trust ” and are no t avail able to t he empl oy erfor ge ner al us e. O urcas e l aw , bot h befor e and a f te r G reat -W

est , t reat s em ploy ee ben efi tplan fun ds as trust funds

. W e have not ed t hat E R I SA “r equi r [es ] t he appl i cat i on of t r adi t i onal t rus tl aw i n t he admi ni s t r at i on of the s t atut e. ” C oar v . Ka zim ir , 990 F. 2d 1413, 1422 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng F i r es t one Ti r e & R ubberC o. v. B r uch , 4 8 9 U

. S

. 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 (19 8 9 )). W e appl i ed t rus t l aw pr i nci pl es i n Skr etvedt , a c ase w h ere a D uPont empl oy ee had pr evi ous l y l i t i gat ed, and w on, t he r i ght t o di s abi l i t ybenef

i t s . 372 F. 3d at198. Skr etvedtm oved foran a w a rd o f in te re s t o n th e w ro n g f u lly w ith h e ld b e n e f

its

. I d. at 19 9. W e con cl ud ed t hat S kret ved t cou l d b e enti t l ed to i nter estAl t h o u g h Pe l l r e q u e s t e d a n a war d o f i n t e r e s to n t he 8 amount of pens i on bene fi t s w r ongful l yw i t hhel d, he di d not m ent i on t hi s r eques t unt i l he fi l ed hi s r epl ybr i ef. T he ar gum ent is th u s w a iv e d

. Skret vedt v. E

. I. D uP on tde N em ou rs , 372 F. 3d 1 9 3 , 2 0 2 -0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ [ A ]n iss u e is w a iv e d u n les s a p a rty r ai s es i tin it s o p eni ng br i ef, and fort hos e purpos es a pas s i ng ref ere n ce to an issue w il l no t suf fice to b ri n g that is s u e b ef o re t hi s cour t

. ”)

. W e do not ci t e Skr etvedt her e fort he pr opos i t i on that an E R IS A litiga n t can rec eive interest (al tho u g h h e m ay ), butr atherfort he pr opos i t i on that“r es t i tut i on byw ayof a c o n s tru c tiv e t ru s t” is a n a p p ro p ri a te a n d a v a ila b le re m e d y . I d. at214. 33 undera r es t i tut i on ary t heoryand r emanded forfur t her proceed i ng s. I

d. at 21 5

. W e d eterm ined that su ch an aw ard 8 w o u ld n o t m a k e D u P o n t “‘ p e rso n a llyliab le’ f o r ‘in ter e st’ .

. . in vi ol at ion of G reat -W

est [, beca us e]

. . . . Skr etvedt ’ s caus e of a c t i on un de r§ [1 13 2]( a ) ( 3) ( B) i s a ga i ns tt he r e l e va ntER I SA plans w herebyhe seeks res t i tuti on byw ayof a c on struct i ve trust over t he actual funds w r ongful l yearned byt hos e pl ans . ” I d. at 214. W e al s o det erm i ned thatt he funds i n q u est i on coul d be “cl ear l yt r ace d”:

“ [ T ]o f in d th e f u n d s S k re tv e d t alle g e s b e lo n g to hi m . . . , w e ne e d l oo k no fu r t he rt ha n the ER I SA pl ans t hatw i t hhel d Skr etvedt ’ s benef i t s for s ever al y ear s and pr ofi t ed w i t h resp ectt o t he w i t hhol di ng of thos e bene fi t s . . . . Skr et vedthasIn s o m e c a s e s , G reat -W est w il l fo rec lose the p lai n ti ff ’s 9 r emedi es bec au se t he pl an funds w i l l notbe cl ear l yt r ace abl e. 5 3 4 U .S . at 2 1 3 . T h is is b e c a u se E R IS A p ro v id e s e x c e p tio n s to t h e r e q u i r e me n tt h a tp l a n f u n d s b e h e l d i n t ru s t

. 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 3 (b). 34 suffici entl y i den t i fi ed speci fi c fun ds t raceabl e to t he def endantE R I SA pl ans t hatbel ong i n good c o n s c ie n c e to h im .” I d. W e adde d i n a footnot e: “[A ] s s ever al ci r cui tcou r t s have n o t e d , t h e S e n a t e F i n a n c e Co mm i t t e e , i n i t s r e p o r to n E RI S A, s peci fi cal l ycont empl at ed that‘ appr op ri at e equi t abl e r el i ef’ u n d e r § [ 1 1 3 2 ]( a )( 3 )( B ) w o u ld in c lu d e , ‘[ f ]o r e x a m p l e , . . . a cons t ruct i ve trus t[t o] be i m pos ed on the plan as s et s . . . . ’ ” I d. at 21 4 n . 2 8 (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he ru li ng i n Skr etvedt di d notvi ol at e G reat -W est , nor w o u ld a ru lin g th a t P e ll i s e n tit led to re stitu tio n f o r h is u n d u ly lo w p rio r p e n sio n p a ym e n ts. D u rin g P e ll’s e m p lo ym e n t, 9 D uP o n tm ade c ont r i but i ons t o i t s pens i on fund t o covert he agg r e g a t e f

u tu r e p e n s i o n s o f

i t s c u r r e n te mpl o y e e s . The amount s of thes e contr i but i ons w er e ca l cul at ed thr ough a for m ul a t hat s peci fi cal l y t ook Pel l i nt o acc ount

. T her efor e, t he re stitu tio n P e ll se e k s fo r his u n d u ly lo w p a st p e n sio n p a ym e n ts is cl ea rl y tr a ce ab le t o the p lan trust fu n d s in D u P o n t’ s pos s es s i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tm ade an er r or of l aw w hen i tas s um ed t hati tcoul d not o rde r D u Pont t o payPel l fort he di ffe r enceA gai n , w e not e thatt hi s cas e i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om 10 E i cho rn . T he E i chor n pl ai nt i ffs s oughtt o be aw arde d t he b e n e f i t s t h e y wo u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d h a d t h e y r e m a i n e d AT&T e m p lo y e e s . 4 8 4 F .3 d a t 6 4 8 . T h e re lief th e yre q u e ste d w a s in t he nature of “b ack p ay ” and w as l egal r at her than equ i t able, so it w a s u n a v a ila b l e u n d e r E R IS A

. I d. at656. Pel l ’ s r eques t ed r el i ef i s not “bac k pay , ” butcons i s t s of the bene fi t s t hatD uPont t ol d hi m he had e arned. 35 betw een t h e benef

i tamount s he r ece i ved and the amount s he sh o u ld h av e re ce ived

. U n d er Skr etvedt , itis a p p ro p ria te to 10 im p o se a c o n stru c tiv e tru st o n th e D u P o n t p lan f u n d s to o b tain r es t i tut i on fort he por t i ons of the pas tpens i on paym ent s t hat w er e w r ongful l yw i t hhel d fr om Pel l

. 372 F. 3d at214.

3 . A d ju ste d S e rv ice D a te T h e D istri ct C o u rt en

joine d D u P o n t t o ca lculate P ell ’s p en sion b en ef

it s u sing the d ate o f A u g u st 1, 19 7 2

. T h er e a re t w o pote nt i al dat es t hatcoul d be us ed: Pel l ’ s fi r s tdayof empl oym ent at C ons ol ( February10, 1971) ort he dat e on w hi ch he bec ame el i gi bl e t o par t i ci pat e i n C o n so l’ s pens i on pl an ( A ugus t1, 1972)

. Pel l ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdet er m i ned thatt he corr ectdat e i s A ugus t1, 1972. W e agr ee. T h e 1 9 9 1 e m a il fro m D u P o n t p re -re tire m e n t co u n se lo r D o ris U hde, combi ned wi th th e p e n s i on benef i tes t i m at es Pel l r ece i ved dur i ng t he 1990s , cons t i tut e a mat er i al m i s r epr es ent at i on about Pel l ’ s adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e.36 T he D i s t r i ctC our tchos e A ugus t1, 1972 on t he bas i s of the W ad d ell L ett er. D ir ec tl yb elow the s alutati o n “D ea r M r. Pel l , ” the l et t erpr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng i nfor m at i on:

“ RE : S AL AR Y B E NE F I T P L ANS Soci al Secur i t yN um ber : [om i t t ed] D at e of Bi r t h: 07- 11- 42 E m pl oym entD at e: 02- 10- 71 R et i r ement Pl an C r edi t ed Servi ce D at e: 08- 01- 72” In th e s e c o n d p a ra g ra p h , u n d e r th e h e a d in g “ R e tir e m e n t P la n ,” t he l et t er stat ed: “The Pensi on y ou r ece i ve w i l l be ca l cul at ed undert he D uPont Pl an bas ed on y ourt ot al combin ed s ervi ce. T hi s r et i r ement benef

i tw i l l be off

s etbyanypaym enty ou re c e iv e f ro m th e C o n so l P lan a s a re su lt o f y o u r a c c ru e d b e n e f

it a s o f th e d a te o f

tr a n s f e r.” T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatP ell s houl d have know n t hatt he corr ect d at e w as hi s el i gi bi l i t ydat e for par t i ci pat i on i n t he C ons ol pl an, and nothi s i ni t i al C ons ol e m p lo ym e n t d a te

. P e ll , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 8 6 4 6 0 4 a t * 1 4 n .1 3 . T h is co n clus ion d o es no t ta k e in to a c c o u n t D u P o n t’ s m i s r epr es ent at i ons over an “ext ended cour s e of deal i ng. ” Kurz II, 96 F. 3d at1553. N eit h er the W ad d ell let ter n o r th e em ail s fro m D u P o n t’ s b en ef it s ad m inistrators e x p lai n ed u n am b igu o u slyh o w P ell’s pens i on w oul d be ca l cul at ed. B utD uPontcomm uni cat ed r epea t edl yt o Pel l , i n t he U hd e emai l and the 1990s pens i on37 es t i m at es , t hat hi s adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e w as February10, 1971. In th e a n a ly sis a b o v e , w e e x p lain e d th a t P e ll h a s m a d e o u t a cl ai m forequi t abl e es t oppel beca us e the U hde em ai l and the subsequ ent pensi on est i m at es w ere m at eri al m i sr epresent at i on s, Pel l r ea so n ab ly an d d etri m ent al l y r el i ed on t he m i sr eprese n tatio n s, a n d th e re w e re e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m st ances. F o r th e se sa m e re a so n s, D u P o n t i s liab le to P e ll fo r b e n e f it paym ent s t hatr efl ecta pensi on cal cul at i on dat e of February10, 1971. I I I

. CO NC L US I ON Pel l has s t andi ng t o s ue underE R I SA , and the D i s t r i ct C our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thathe made outa cl ai m forr el i ef b a se d o n th e th e o ryo f

e q u itab le e sto p p e l. T h e C o u rt p ro p e rly enj oi ned D uPont t o payPel l an i ncr eas ed pens i on benef i tgoi ng f o rw a rd . H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt m a d e a n e rro r o f la w w h e n it det erm ined t hatPel l coul d notr ece i ve equi t abl e r es t i tut i on for th e a m o u n t o f

h is p a st p e n si o n p a ym e n ts th a t w a s w ro n g f u lly w i t hhel d. I n addi t i o n , t he C our terr ed w hen i tdet erm i ned that D uP on tshou l d u se an ad ju ste d servi ce date of 19 72

. B ecause of D uPont ’ s r epea t ed m isr epr es ent at i ons t o Pel l overan ext ended c our s e of de al i ng, i ts houl d us e hi s fi r s t dayof C ons ol empl oym ent( February10, 1971) as hi s adj us t ed s ervi ce da t e. W e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g s th a t P e ll is ent i t l ed t o r el i ef and t hat D uPontm us tpayhi m a hi gherpens i on b en ef itg o ing fo rw a rd

. W e w il l r ev erse the D istri ct C o u rt ’s rul i ng thatr es t i tut i on forpas tl ow paym ent s i s unavai l abl e, as w e ll as its ru lin g th a t D u P o n t m u st u se a n a d ju ste d se rv ice d a te38 of A ugus t1, 1972. W e w i l l r emand fort he e n tr yof an or der cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.