NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FULL -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 08a0680n.06 Filed: Nove mber 5, 2008
N o. 07- 4074 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
RI CHARD W HI TE S CARVER, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t,
v. SA B I N R O B B I N S PA PE R C O
. , A dm i ni s t r at orof t he S u p p lem en tal E x ec u ti v e R eti rem en t Plan ; SA B IN RO BB I NS P AP E R C O, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he Sout her n D i s t r i ctof O hi o at C in c in n a ti

/ B efore: G U Y , B A T C H E L D E R , an d M cK E A G U E , C i rcu i t Jud ges. P ER CURI AM
. In t his E R ISA act i on con t est i ng t he d enial of ret i rem ent benefit s, pl ai nt i ff Ri char d W hi t es carverchal l enges t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s e n tryo f j udgm entforhi s for m er empl oy er . W hi t es carvercl ai m s t he di s t r i ctcour ter r ed by( 1) al l ow i ng t he expa ns i on of t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d and t he empl oy er/pl an admi ni s t r at or ’ s i ns er t i on of “ne w r eas ons ” for t he deni al ; ( 2) appl y i ng t he w r ong s t an d ard of r evi ew t o t he pl an admi ni s t r at or ’ s deci s i on; and ( 3) notaw ar di ng hi m at t or neyfee s att he poi nti tent er ed j udgm entforpl ai nt i ff. I
.No. 07-4074 2

The Planpro v ides th at ben efits are payabl e if an em ploy ee is terminated witho ut cau se, but n ot 1 pay able if the em

ploy ee q uits o r is discharg ed fo r cau se. P la in tif f R ic h a rd W h ite s c a rv e r, th e f o rm e r p re s id e n t o f

d e f e n d a n t S a b in R o b b in s C o ., se e k s re tirem e n t b e n e f

its se t as id e b yth e c o m p a n yf o r a sm a ll n u m b e r o f

e x e c u tiv e s in its S u p p lem e n tal E x e c u tiv e R e tirem e n t P lan (so m e tim e s c a lled a “ to p h a t” p lan , ref e rre d to her ei n as t he “Pl an”)
. H e ass er t s he w as w r ongl yexcl uded fr om appr oxi m at el y$300, 000 of P la n b e n e f

its b yth e c o m p a n y ’s te rm in a tio n o f h is e m p lo y m e n t in 2 0 0 3 “ f o r c a u s e .” 1 W hi t es carverw or ked forSabi n R obbi ns C o. , a C i nci nnat i , O hi o paperr es el l er , fr om 1975 unt i l t he fa l l of 2003. H e moved up t he r anks fr om s al es m an t o pr es i dent , a pos i t i on h e h e l d f

r o m 1 9 9 9 u n t i l A u g u s to f 2 0 0 3
. I n e a r l y A u g u s t2 0 0 3 , h e w a s c o n t a c t e d b y a
m embe r o f the Sabi n R obbi ns B oar d of D i r ect or s , not i fy i ng hi m of a meet i ng of t he E xecut i ve C om m i t t ee f

ort he fol l ow i ng day , A ugus t 3, 2003. A t t he m eet i ng, t he ot hert hr ee p a rticip a n ts a sk e d h im to re sig n a s S a b in R o b b in s’s p re sid e n t. W h it esc arv er d id n o t ag ree to resign as p reside n t, an d o n A u g u st 8, 20 0 3 , the B o ard
o f D ire c to rs v o ted to re m o v e h im . W h ites c a rv e r’s c o m p e n sa tio n w a s n o t im m e d iate ly aff ect ed. A l t hough W hi t es carver w as excl uded fr om Sabi n R obbi ns ’ s fac i l i t i es aft ert hi s , he
con t i nu ed o n as t he m osthighl yc ompe ns a t e d Sabi n Robb i ns em ploy ee— speci fi cal l yt o assi st
w i t h a fa i l i ng bus i nes s deal w i t h a Penns y l vani a i nvest orgr oup cal l ed “Team T en. ” Team T en had rec ent l yr efurbi s hed a Ty r one, Penns y l vani a pape rm i l l , and Sabi n R obbi ns had agr eed t o pur chas e a l ar ge amount of pape rpr oduced byt he mi l l
. T h e p ar t i es agr ee that W hi t es carver w as uni quel y pos i t i oned t o per for m t hi s w or k. T he E xecut ive C o m m it t eeNo. 07-4074 3

aut hor i zed W hi t es carver t o at t end a m i d- A ugus t T eam T en m eet i ng i n T yr one and r eques t ed that h e crea te a m ark eti n g p lan i n co n n ec ti o n w ith the pro ject. A t th e p o int of

W h it esc arv er’s t er m i nat i on as pr es i dent , i tw as cont empl at ed t hat an agr eement w oul d be r eac hed on ei t her W hit escar ver’ s sever ance o r hi s conti nu ed em ploym ent w i t h S abin R ob bins. O n o r about A ug ust11 , 20 03 , W hit escar ver chan ged t he bi l l i ng on his S abin- R ob binsiss u e d c e ll p h o n e a f

ter w h ich b ill s a n d c a ll d e tails w e re m a iled to h is h o m e in ste a d o f to S a b in R o b b in s’s o f

f ice s. W h ites c a rv e r su b m itt e d o n e o f h is po st-A u g u st 1 1 c e ll p h o n e b ill s to S a b in R o b b in s f

o r re im b u rse m e n t in S e p tem b e r o r O c to b e r, an d S a b in R o b b in s s e n t a ch ec k to W h it esc arv er. W h en S ab in R o b b in s la te r ask ed fo r t h e b il l detail , h o w ev er, W hi t es carvercomm uni cat ed t hathe had s ubm i t t ed t he re i m bur s ement r eques ti n er r or , and
r epai d Sabi n R obbi ns t he amount of t he r ei m bur s ement . W hi t es carver never di d s uppl yt he cel l ph on e records. D ur i n g t h e t i me p e r i o d f r o m Au g u s t t o Oct o b e r 2 0 0 3 , t h e p a r t i e s h a d an ongoi ng di s put e overW hi t es carver ’ s s ever ance packa ge. Sabi n R obbi ns m ade a s ever ance pr opos al
w hi ch W hi t es carverr ej ect ed, t he n W h i t e s c a r verm ade a count er - pr opos al t hatSabi n R obbi ns
re jec ted . It i s a lleg e d b yS a b in R o b b in s th a t W h ites c a rv e r w ith h e ld in f o rm a tio n c r u c ial to t he Team T en dea l as l ever age t o get t he s ever ance packa ge he demanded. W hi t es carver , on t he ot herhand, cont ends t hathe gave Sabi n R obbi ns al l t he r eques t ed T eam T en i nfor m at i on he w as capa bl e of pr ovi di ng, es peci al l yi n l i ght of hi s new l yl i m i t ed ac ces s t o Sabi n R obbi ns i nfo rm at i on and res ou rces .No. 07-4074 4

By the tim e this happ ened, Sa bin Robbin s ha d terminated the agreem ent w ith Team Ten. 2 I t is Sabi nRo b b i n s ’ s c o nt e nt i o nth atWh i t e s c arv e r w a s d i r e c t e d

a s o f Au gu s t8 , th e d ay

h e w as 3 te rmin at ed

a s pr es id ent, n ot

to h av e un auth oriz ed

c onta ct w ith em pl oy ee s, as so ci at es , v en do rs , o r cu st omer s of S abin Rob bins. U l t i m at el y , Sabi n R obbi ns t er m i nat ed W hi t es carver ’ s empl oy m enti n l at e O ct ober 2003. I n a l et t erw r i t t en bynew pr es i dent T om R ober t s , W hi t es carver ’ s empl oy m entw as

2 to b e ter m in a ted a s o f

O c to b e r 3 1 f

o r c a u se , w h ich m e a n t W h ites c a rv e r w o u ld n o t b e e lig ib le fo r r et i r ement benef

i t s fr om t he Pl an. T he l et t erfocus ed on al l eged pr ohi bi t ed cont act betw een W hit escar ver and S abin R ob bins em ploy ees, ven do rs , and cust om ers . 3 [O ] n A ugus t8, 2003, y ou w er e s peci fi cal l ydi r ect ed t o n o t h ave a ny com m un i cat i on w i t h S abin R ob bins’ ven do rs , cust om ers or em ploy ees unless aut hor i zed byt he Execut i ve C om m i t t ee . . . . T hatdi r ect ive w as r ei t er at ed num er o u s ti m es i n s ubs equentcomm uni cat i ons . H ow ever , a r evi ew of y our cel l phone ca l l s fort he per i od fr om A ugus t8 t hr ough A ugus t10, 2003 l eads us t o concl ude t haty ou vi ol at ed t he above r efe r en ce d d i r ect i ve and ha d m ult i ple com m un i cat i on s w hich w ere contr aryt o thi s di rect i ve. B ecause these cal l s w er e notaut hor i zed, w e m us t i nfer t hat t hos e comm uni cat i ons w er e not i n fur t her ance of S abi n R obbi ns ’ bus i nes s i nt er es t s . Fur t her m or e, y ourr ece nt decl i nat i on t o s uppl ya det ai l ed s t at ement of cel l phone char ges for w hi ch y ou r ece i ved r ei m bur s ement fr om Sabi n R obbi ns ( and y ourdeci s i on to payback th e a m o u n t th a t you w e re re im b u rse d ra th e r th a n su p p ly th e d e tail) le a d s u s to i nfert haty ourvi ol at i on of t he A ugus t8, 2003 di r ect i ve l i kel ycont i nued af t er A ugus t10. R ober t s al s o w r ot e t hati f W hi t es carvert ur ned overhi s p ers onal cel l phone r ecor ds , t he B oard w ou l d re- evaluat e t he fo r cause det erm i nati on . O n N ov em ber 10, 2003 , R ob e rts aut hor ed anot h er let t er , s t at i ng t hatbeca us e t he per s onal cel l phone r ecor ds had notbeenNo. 07-4074 5

The P lan de fi ne s “c au se ” as “ th e di sc lo sure o f in fo rmat io n (a s sp ec if ie d inS ec ti on

2
. 03 (a )) , 4 com petition (as sp ecified in S ection 2.0 3(b)), theft, fraud, dish onesty , e m bez z lem ent, di s l oya l t y

and intention al des truction of o r w anton disreg ard fo r prop e rt y, bu to nl y inso far as such actions relate to the Em ploy er.” Sabin Robbin s also referred

to W hi t escarv er’s “unapp rov ed v acation” and a redacted

Am erican 5 Exp ress b ill in its m otion to dis miss. t ur ned over , W hi t es carver ’ s empl oy m entw as t er m i nat ed “f or‘ C aus e ’ a s th a tt er m i s defi ned” i n t he Pl an. 4 W hi t es carvers ecur ed couns el and a l et t er w as s ent on hi s behal f t o t he Sabi n R obbi ns B oar d of D i r ect or s on N ovember 14, 2003, r eques t i ng ei t herr evi ew orr econs i der at i on of t he forcaus e t er m i nat i on deci s i on. O n N ovember 26, 2003, t he B oar d r es ponded t o t he l et t er sta tin g th a t itw o u ld re c o n sid e r its d e c isio n o n lyif W h ites c a rv e r w o u ld sh a re h is ce ll p h o n e re c o rd s fo r th e p e rio d b e g in n in g A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 (th e d a te he uni l at er al l y s w i t ched t he cel l phone fr om a bus i nes s phone i n t he name of t he Sabi n R obbi ns PaperC om pany t o hi s per s onal phone) and endi ng O ct ober 21, 2003 and s uch r ecor ds s how t hathe w as notm aki ng cal l s i n vi o lat ion of t h e Co mp a n y ’ s d i r e c t i v e t o h i m. W h i t e s c a r v e rf

i l e d s u i t t h e n e x t mo n t h c l a i mi n g e n t i t l e me n t t o P l a n b e n e f i t s u n d e r2 9 U. S
. C. § 1132. Sabi n R obbi ns fi led a F ed
. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s , as s er t i ng t hat W hit escar ver had “raced” t o the cou rtho use pr i or t o exhau st i ng his adm i nis t rat i ve rem edies , “pr emat ur el y ” fi l i ng s ui t i n di s t r i ct cour t . Sabi n R obbi ns ’ s ar gum ent w as , es s ent i al l y , t hat W hi t es carver ’ s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedyw as t o al l ow fort he ex am ina t i on of hi s cel l phone
r ecor ds , and w i t houtal l ow i ng s uch exami nat i on, he di d notal l ow t he pl an admi ni s t r at ort he

5 oppor t uni t yt o r evi ew hi s cl ai m . T hi s m ot i on w as deni ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t , w hi ch foundNo. 07-4074 6

This timingtrac k s 29 C .F. R. § 2560 .50 3- 1(i)(1), whic h g iv es the plan adm inistrator a 60- day perio d 6 in which to no tify

a claimant o f its b enefit determination on rev iew, and the possib ility of a 60
- day exten sion of tha tt i me w i th no tice to the cla im ant. Sa bin Robbin s argued, citingthis prov ision, that the timingof Whitescarv er’s law suit p rem aturely cut off the 12 0 d ay s to whic h S abin Rob bins was entitled. that W hit escar ver’ s app eal of t he deci si on , via l et t ers authored by his cou nsel , se rv e d to exh aust his adm i nis t rat i ve rem edies
. A ft er the d i st ri ct cou rt den i ed S abin R ob bins’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss forfai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s t r at i ve r emedies, t he par t i es fi l ed cr os s m ot i ons forj udgm ent . W i t houtor al
ar gum ent , t he cour t ent er ed j udgm ent for W hi t es carver fi ndi ng t hatSabi n R obbi ns had ac t ed i n an a rb i t r a r ya n d c a p r i c i o u s ma n n e ri n d e n y i n g W h i t e s c a r v e r ’ s b e n e f i t s , d e t e r mi ni ng
s ubs t ant i al evi dence di d nots uppor ta fi ndi ng t hat W hi t es carverhad bee n “di s l oy al ” under t he Pl an. Sabi n R obbi ns t hen fi l ed a m ot i on for r econs i der at i on, s peci fi cal l yr eques t i ng t hat t he cour thol d or al ar gum ent . T hi s m ot i on w as gr ant ed. A ft er or al ar gum ent , a s et t l ement confe r ence , and addi t i onal br i efi ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tr ever s ed it s el f gi vi ng t he par t i es “60 day s fr om t he dat e of thi s O r dert o compl et e t he a d m i ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. ” T he or der 6

re m a n d e d th e a c tio n to th e p lan a d m in istra to r, f o llo w in g th e 6 0 d a y s, f

o r a 3 0 -d a yp e rio d in
w h ic h it co u ld “c o n clud e it s ad m inist rati v e a p p ea l and issue a f inal d ec isi o n . ” T h e c o u rt sp ec ifi ca ll y retaine d juri sd ict ion fo r “ W h it esc arv er’s ap p ea l o f the S E R P lan a d m inist rator’s f in a l d e c is io n , if

a n y .” U l t i m at el y , aft erexpans i on of t he r ecor d, Sabi n R o b bi ns s t uck byi t s det er m i nat i on t hatW hi t es carverhad been di s l oy al , hi s t er m i nat i on had bee n forcaus e, and t hathe w as notNo. 07-4074 7

Thi s w as c om

m uni cate d to Wh it es carv er in ale tt er , whi chs tate d th at th e S ab inRob bi ns B oard 7 (com prised of four individuals who were not on the Board in 2003 ) had

con sidered his “a

ppeal” of N ov em

ber 14, 20 03, and

determined that Whites carv er’s “disloy alty ” su pported its “ for cau se” d etermination. Spec ifically , th e letter stated that

A s de ta il ed

bel ow , the Re co rd

suf fi ci entl y sho w s th at : (1 ) y ou

r ef us ed r ep eate dl y to c oo pe rate in the c re at io n of an ee de d m ark et in gp lan, p utti ngy our own inte re st b ef or e Sabin Robbin s; (2) y ou extorted the C om pany at a critical tim e by

refusin gto assist w ith the Team Ten disp ute (which as y ou k nowincluded the thre at of litig ation for S abin Rob bins) unless y our onero us se v erance dem ands were m et; (3) y ou disreg arded and v iolated Com pany directive s to not h av e co m m unication s w ith certain

perso ns/entities; (4) y ou conv erted c om

pany cell phon e reco rds; an d (5 ) cont i nu e d to conc eal tho se same reco rds despite num erous requests ov er the course of 3+ y ears. In sum , the ov erwh elmingev idence inth e A dmin is tr at iv e R ec or d re v ea ls th at af te r y our re m ov alf

ro m P re si de nt , y ou

c onti nu al ly pla cedy ourint er est s b e f o r e t hos e of the Company. It is pri m ar il y forthi s re aso n tha t we hav e de te rmin ed

th at th e B oard ’s O ct ob er

2 3, 2 00 3 te rmin at io n for“ cau se” w as p ro pe rl y supp orted. ent i t l ed t o Pl an bene fi t s . O n t he par t i es ’ s econd s etof cr os s - m o ti ons forj udgm ent , t he 7 di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed W hi t es c ar ver ’ s m ot i on and gr ant ed t hatof Sabi n R obbi ns . W hi t es carver t i m el yappea l ed. II
. Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s t hat t he di s t r i ctcour ter r ed i n gr ant i ng r econs i der at i on and,
su b se q u e n tly , rem a n d in g th e m a tter to th e p lan a d m in istra to r. P la in tiff h ig h lig h ts D epar t m ent of L abor r egul at i ons , r equi r i ng E R I SA pl an admi ni s t r at or s t o pr ovi de “w r i t t en
o r e lec tro n ic n o tific a tio n o f a n ya d v e rse b e n e f

it d e ter m in a tio n ,” in c lu d in g “ [ t]h e sp e c if ic
r eas on orr eas ons for t he adver s e det er m i nat i on. ” 29 C
. F. R
. § 2560. 503- 1( g) ( i )
. H i s pos i t i on is th a t th e re a so n s f

irst g iv e n b yth e p lan a d m in istra to r, in O c to b e r 2 0 0 3 , w e re th e o n ly
r eas ons upon w hi ch def endantcan r el yforhi s t er m i nat i on.No. 07-4074 8

T he r eas ons as s er t ed i n t he O ct ober 2003 not i ce s entt o W hi t es carverw er e t hathe had
m a d e c o n ta c t w ith in d iv id u a ls h e w a s d ir e c te d n o t to c o n ta c t a n d th e c o m p a n y ’s “ in f e re n c e ,” fr om hi s r efus al t o t ur n over s ubs equent cel l phone r ecor ds , t hats uch comm uni cat i ons had
con t i nu ed af

t er A ug ust10 , 20 03
. T he l et t er al so refer enced his “act i on s subsequ ent t o [h i s]
r emoval as Pr es i dent
. ” These r eas ons w er e l ar gel y reit era t ed i n t he N ovember 10, 2003 l et t er . I tw as t hes e r eas ons t o w hi ch W hi t es carverr es ponded i n hi s comm uni cat i on of N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 3
. T h e re sp o n se in c lu d e d a sta tem e n t m a d e b yW h ites c a rv e r d e tailin g h is act i vi t i es i n A ugus tand on cer t ai n dat es i n Sept ember and O ct ober
. I ts peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed cont act s he had w i t h Sabi n R obbi ns vendors, cus t om er s , orempl oy ees i n A ugus t . I n a
re sp on se dat ed N ov em ber 26, 2003 , S abin R ob bins agai n ad dress ed the cel l ph on e cal l s, sp e c if ica llye n u m e ra tin g c a lls f ro m c e ll p h o n e re c o rd s p rio r to A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , an d a g a in stat ing it s “inf

ere n ce ” that su ch ca ll s co n ti n u ed b ey o n d A u g u st 10 in li g h t of W h it esc arv er’s
con t i nu i ng refusal t o tur n o ver anyrecor ds. W h it esc arv er resp o n d ed to this l ett er o n D ec em b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , agai n s ubm it ti n g a sw o rn
s t at ement di s cus s i ng cer t ai n cal l s pl ace d i n A ugus t . W hi t es carvert ook t he pos i t i on t hathe
w as n o t dir ec ted to ref

rain f rom su ch co m m u n icati o n u n ti l A u g u st 1 8 , an d that the c all s w ere p erso n al i n n ature , n o t bu sine ss related
. H e f il ed su ittw o d ay s lat er. In its in iti a l o rd e r g rantin g ju d g m e n t f o r W h ites c a rv e r, th e d istric t co u rt re jec ted S a b in R obbi ns ’ s cont ent i on aboutt he phone r ecor ds
. I tas s um ed, forpurpos es of t he dec i s i on, t hat t he no- cont act di r ect i ve w as gi ven t o W hi t es carver on A ugus t 8, 2003. N ext , i tfound t hatNo. 07-4074 9

The district c ourt a lso ad dressed Whitescarv er’s “unautho riz ed v acation, ” taken fro m late Octo ber 8 until early

N ov em ber, 2003 , d

uringwhich he g ot the initial te rmin a t i on letter. The court noted that the v acation was not g iv en b y Sa bin Robbin s as a reason for the termination until afte r this litig ation had begun, and found

that, in any

ev ent, it wa s no t beh av ior su fficient to upho ld a termination for cau se. al t hough t her e w as “s ubs t ant i al evi dence t hatW hi t es carverdi s obey ed t he l et t ero f t he nocont actdi r ecti v e b ycont act i ng t hr ee ve ndor s and unnamed empl oy ees fr om A ugus t8t h1 0 th ,” th e re w a s n o “ s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e th a t W h ite s c a rv e r a c te d d is lo y a lly.” 8 I n i t s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, defe ndantas s er t ed for the fi r s tt i m e t hat W hi t es carverhad made at t empt s atext or t i on i n negoti ati n g hi s s ever ance , and at t ache d W hi t es carver ’ s A ugus t17, 2003 emai l conce r ni ng a pr opos ed s ever ance packa ge. A ft eror al
ar gum entand s upp lem ent al br i efi ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tdeci ded t hata r emand for “compl et i on” of the r ecor d w as t he appr opr i at e di s pos i t i on of t he ca s e. III . T h is ca se is un lik e th o se E R IS A c a se s w h e re a n e m p lo y e e o r f o rm e r e m p lo y e e a ss e rts ent i t l ement t o a bene fi t , t he cl ai m i s deni ed, and appe al i s pur s ued bas ed on an agr eed upon
a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd . H e re , the “ p lan a d m in istra to r,” o r p re sid e n t sp e a k in g o n b e h a lf o f h is boar d, announce d an ant i ci pat or y deni al of s uppl ement al r et i r ement benef i t s . A frus t r at i ng
e x c h a n g e b e tw e e n d e f

e n d a n t an d p lain tiff

e n su e d , w ith d e f

e n d a n t co n tin u in g to d e m a n d c e ll phone r ecor ds and fa i l i ng t o r es pond t o pl ai nt i ff’ s expl anat i on forhi s act i ons . Pl ai nt i ff then abrupt l yfi l ed s ui t , endi ng anyfur t herdevel opm entof t he r ecor d. W e ca nnotfi nd t hatr emand t o t he admi ni s t r at orundert hes e ci r cumst ances w as
er r oneous . T he di s t r i ctcour tfound t hatr el evanti nfor m at i on exi s t i ng atthe t i m e of the deni alNo. 07-4074 10

o f be n ef it s d ec isi o n w as no t m ad e a part o f t h e ad m inist rati v e pro ce ed ing s w h ic h w e re t r uncat ed befor e com pl et i on. I n r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on t he di s t r i ct cour tr eexa m i ned t he O c to b e r-D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 tim e p e rio d : W hi t es carverr eques t ed an appea l i n w r i t i ng and provi ded a sw or n s t at ement t o Sabi n R obbi ns on N ovemb er 14, 2003. I n r es pons e, Sabi n R obbi ns on N ovember 26, 2003 fl es hed outear l i ers t at ed r eas ons fort er m i nat i ng W hi t es carver , but s t at ed i tw oul d r econs i deri t s deci s i on onl yi f he pr oduced t he di s put ed phone r ecor ds
. W hi t es carverr es ponded on D ece m ber22, 2003 by pr ovi di ng t w o addi t i onal s w or n s t at ement s , but he di d notp rod u ce the p h o n e re c o rd s. In ste a d , b e c a u s e h e to o k S a b in R o b b in s a t it s w o rd th a t it w oul d notcons i derfur t herappea l w i t houtt he phone r ec o rds, W hi t es carver fi l ed t hi s s ui t on D ece m ber 24, 2003. T he C our t found i n an ea r l i erO r der , and s t i l l bel i eves , t hatW hi t es carver ’ s comm uni cat i ons on N ovember 14, 2003 and D ecem ber 22, 2003 , w e re su f fi ci ent t o ex hau sthis adm i nis t rat i ve rem edies , es peci al l ycons i der i ng t hatt her e w as no w r i t t en cl ai m s orappea l s pr ocedur e. H ow ever , t he C our tw as n o t spe ci fi cal l ycal l ed on t o and di d notcons i derat t hatt i m e t he i m pli ca ti o n s o f i t s O r deri n r egar ds t o t he compl et enes s of t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. T he cour t not ed t hat defe ndant w as never abl e t o gi ve a f ul l r es pons e t o pl ai nt i ff’ s l et t er s and
sw o rn sta tem e n ts, a s it s re sp o n se to p lain tiff ’s N o v e m b e r 14 lette r an d sta tem e n t sta ted it d id not“cons i deri tt o be t he purpos e of t hat l et t er t o r es pond t o t he i nacc ur aci es , ” and t hati thad
o n lytw o d a y s b e tw e e n p lain tiff ’s D e c e m b e r 2 2 lette r a n d sta tem e n t an d th e d a yh e f iled su it, D ece m ber24, 2003. W e conc l ude t hatt he cour t ’ s co n clus ion t hatr emand for fur t her i nfor m at i on fr om bot h t he pl ai nt i ff an d p lan adm i ni s t r at or , “t hen know n t o t he par t i es and t hen r el i ed upon bySabi n R o b b ins i n m aki ng t he dec i s i on t o t er m i nat e W hi t es carverfor
caus e i n l at e 2003, ” w as cons i s t entw i t h E R I SA and w i t hi n t he cour t ’ s di s cr et i on. I V.No. 07-4074 11

H aving de t erm i ned t hat the r e mandt o the adm i nis t rat or w as approp ri at e, w e no w m ust
r e v i e w de novo w het hert he di s t r i ctcour tw as cor r ecti n appl y i ng an arbi t r ar yand ca pr i ci ous st and ard of revi ew t o the adm i nis t rat or’ s denial of b enef i t s. Sabi n R obbi ns cl ai m s t he Pl an expr es s l ypr ovi des di s cr et i on t o t he Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or bas ed upon t he fol l ow i ng Pl an l anguage : Interpret at i on . . . . T he E m ploy er shal l hav e t he aut ho ri t y t o adm i nis ter th is Pl an. T he admi ni s t r at i on of t hi s Pl an by t he E m pl oy er , and anyact i on t aken hereun der shal l be bi nd i ng and con cl usi ve upo n al l part i es hav i ng an int eres t undert hi s Pl an. C o u rt s m u s t in te rp re t a P la n ’s p ro v is io n s a c c o rd in g to th e ir p la in m e a n in g . P er ezv. A etna L if

e I ns . C o. , 150 F. 3d 550 ( 6t h C i r . 1998)
. W her e t he Pl an, as her e, des cr i bes t he i nt erpr et at i on r eac hed byt he empl oy er/ admi ni s t r at or t o be “bi ndi ng and concl us i ve, ” w e ca n onl y concl ude t hat t he pl ai n m eani ng of such l anguage i s t o ves tt he t ype of di s cr et i on i n t he Pl an A dm i ni s t r at ort hat m us t be re vi ew ed under an arbi t r ar y and capr i ci ous s t andar d. I n our
ear l i ercas e of Bo r d a v . Ha r d y , L e wis , Po l l a r d

& Pa g e , P. C. , 1 3 8 F .3 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 6 -6 8 (6 th C i r . 1998) , w e constr ued si m i l ar “bi ndi ng and concl us i ve” l anguage t o r equi r e r evi ew under
an arbi t r ar yand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d. W hi t es carverar gues , how ever , t hatt hi s i s an ER I SA t op hatpl an w hi ch mustbe
r evi ew ed undera de novo s t andar d. A t op hatpl an is d ef ined as a pl an “mai nt ai ned byan empl oy erpr i m ar i l yfort he purpos e of pr ovi di ng defe r r ed compens at i on fora s el ectgr oup of
m anag em ent orhighl ycom pen sat ed em ploy ees. ” 29 U
. S
. C
. § 10 51 (2)
. P l ai nti ff ci t es t o case aut hor i t y , out s i de of t hi s C i r cui t , t hat s uppor t s hi s cont ent i on, al t hough t her e appea r s t o beNo. 07-4074 12

a ci r cui ts pl i ton t hi s i s s ue. W e fi nd i tunnece s s ar yt o di s cus s t hes e ca s es as w e conc l ude as di d t he N i nt h C i r cui ti n G i l l i am v. N evada Pow erC o. , 4 8 8 F
. 3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 1 9 4 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ), th a t “ w e w o u ld re a c h th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n u n d e r e ith e r s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w .” V. F in d in g n o e rro r in th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e d istric t co u rt p ro c e e d e d , w e n o w tu rn to the ju d g m en t entere d b ythe c o u rtin f av o r of the d ef en d an t. O u r d e n ovo r e v ie w o f th is j udgm entconvi nces us t hatt he cour tcor r ect ly d eterm i ned t hatt he ac t i ons of t he Pl an A dm i nis t rat or w ere not arbi t raryor capri ci ou s. W hi t es carverw as di s char g ed fo rdi s l oy al t y . I tw as defe ndant ’ s pos i t i on t hat W hi t es carverw as di s l oy al beca us e he r efus ed t o pr ovi de t he Team T en mar ket i ng pl an, ext or t ed t he company , and conc eal ed companycel l p h o n e recor ds
. I tar gues t hat W hi t es carverhel d t he company hos t age by demandi ng t hat Sabi n R obbi ns m us t fi r s tagr ee t o s at i s fy W hi t es carver ’ s ow n per s onal and oner ous demands be for e he w oul d hel p s ol ve t he Te a m T e n p r o b l e m. W e conc l ude, as di d t he di s t r i ct j udge, t hat Sabi n R obbi ns r eas onabl yconcl uded t hat W hi t es carveract ed i n hi s ow n bes ti nt er es t s att he expe ns e of the company ’ s i nt er es t s . A ft er W hi t es carverw as r emoved as pr es i dent , hi s empl oy m entfocus ed al m os tenti rely on t he T ea m T e n a g r e e me n t . Th e c o mpa n y a s k e d h i m t o p r o v i d e a d e t a i l e d ma r k e t i n g and s al es plan for t he p roj ect m ult i ple t i m es i n A ug ust and S eptem ber. W hit escar ver st at ed at l east t w i ce thathe w oul d w i t hhol d as s i s t ance on t he proj ect unt i l t he com pany m ethi s s ever anceNo. 07-4074 13

S in ce p la inti ff

d id n ot p re v ai l i n th is li ti g at io n, w e ne ed n ot a dd re ss h is c onte nt io n th at

h e sh ou ld 9 hav e be en award ed attorney fees. demands. H e al s o gave t he i m pr es s i on t hat he w as w i t hhol di ng hel pful i nfor m at i on on t he T e a m T e n a g r e e me n t . Fi n a l l y , W h i t e s c a r v e r ma d e s e v e r a l s t a t e me n t s i n d i c a t i n g t hat he
v i e w e d t h e c o m p a n y a s a n a d v e r s a r y. F i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e w a s a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r d e f e n d a n t ’ s d i s c h a r g e f

o r c a u s e , we AF F I RM th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. 9