N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT HCIRCUIT
W E NDE L L W . RE INK ING , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AL YE SK

A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO .; AL YE SK

A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO . PE NSIO N FO R O PE RAT I NG CO M PANY E M PL O YE E S, initially e ffe c tive July1, 1976; AL YE SK A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO . SE PARAT I O N B E NE FIT S PL AN NO . 516; AL YE SK

A PIPE L I NE SE R

V ICE CO . PE NSIO N PL AN RE T I RE M E NT AND T RUST CO M M IT T E E ; AL YE SK

A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO . H UM AN RE SO URCE S DE PART M E NT AS PL AN ADM INIST RAT O R FO R AL YE SK A SE PARAT I O N B E NE FIT S PL AN NO . 516, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 11-35363

D.C . No. 3:07-c v-00212-JW S
M E M O RANDUM *

W E NDE L L W . RE INK ING , No. 11-35397 

# FIL ED
AUG 29 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.pa ge 2

Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. AL YE SK

A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO .; AL YE SK

A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO . PE NSIO N FO R O PE RAT I NG CO M PANY E M PL O YE E S, initially e ffe c tive July1, 1976; AL YE SK A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO . SE PARAT I O N B E NE FIT S PL AN NO . 516; AL YE SK

A PIPE L I NE SE R

V ICE CO . PE NSIO N PL AN RE T I RE M E NT AND T RUST CO M M IT T E E ; AL YE SK

A PIPE L INE SE RV ICE CO . H UM AN RE SO URCE S DE PART M E NT AS PL AN ADM INIST RAT O R FO R AL YE SK A SE PARAT I O N B E NE FIT S PL AN NO . 516, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. D.C . No. 3:07-c v-00212-JW S

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska John W . Se dwic k, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Submitte d

August 14, 2013 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : K O Z INSKI , C hie f Judge , B E RZ O N and IKUT A , C irc uit Judge s. 1. The struc tura l c onflic t of intere s t pre se nt in this c a s e is e ntitle d to little
we ight be c a

use the re ’ s no e vide nc e of m a lic e , se lf-de a ling, a suspe c t c la im s-pa ge 3

granting history , ina de q

u ate inve stiga

tion of a c la i m or fa i lure to c re d it a
c la im ant’ s re lia

ble e vide n c e . Se e Abatie v. Alta He a l th & Life Ins. C o., 458 F.3d 955, 968–69 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ).
2. The Pe nsion Pla

n a dm inistra

tor didn’ t a

buse its discre t ion in deny i ng R e inking’ s a

pplic ation for be ne fits. Se e C onkright v. From m e rt, 130 S. C t. 1640, 1646 (2010); Ga

tti v. Re lia

nc e Sta nda rd Life Ins. C o., 415 F.3d 978, 981 (9th C ir. 2005). ThePe n sion Pla

n’ s de finition of “Em

ploy e e ” a s “ any

pe rson e nga ge d in
re nde ring pe rsona l s e rvic e s to theEm ploy e r for e arnings c o n side re d wa ge s unde r Se c tion 3121(a

) of the [Inte rna l R e v e nue ] C ode ” c an re a sona bly be re a d to re fe r only to thosee m

ploy e e s on Aly e ska ’ s pa

y roll. Thepla

n a dm inistra

tor’ s de c ision to a d opt suc h

an inte rpre tation doe sn’ t viola te ERISA’ s a

nti-c utba c k provision, se e 29 U.S.C . § 1054(g), a s the late r am e ndm e nts to thepla n c an re a sona

bly be re a d a s
c la rific ations of thee arlie r la ngua ge . 3. The Se pa

rat ion Pla n a dm inistra

tor a lso didn’ t a

buse its discre tion in de ny ing R e inking bene fits. Thepla n e xplic itly

distinguishe s “ re gula

r” e m ploy e e s from “ n on-Aly e ska

c ontra c t pe rsonne l.” B e c a

u se R e inking wa s form a l ly
e m ploy e d by a se rie s of third-pa

rty sta ffing firm s, not Aly e ska , a pla n
a dm inistra

tor c ould re a sona

bly c onc lude that he fa lls into the latte r c ate gory .pa ge 4

The distric t c ourt sha ll e nte r sum m a ry judgm e nt for de fe nda

nts.
RE V E RSE D.Re ink

i ng v . Aly e

sk a Pipe line

Se rv . C o. , No. 11-35363 B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring a nd dissenting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt a s to thepe nsion pla n be ne fits but c onc ur with re ga rd to these pa

rat ion be ne fits. For the re a s ons e xpla ine d by the distric t c ourt, thepla

n a dm inistra

tor’ s inte rpre tation of thephra se “ any pe rson e nga ge d in re nde ring pe rsona l se rvic e s to the E m ploy e r for e arnings c onside re d wa g e s unde r Se c tion 3121(a ) of the [Inte rna l R e ve nue ] C ode ” wa s a

n a buse of disc re tion. In ad dition, the pla n’ s sepa rat e
re fe re n c e to le a se d e m

ploy e e s would besupe rfluous we re Aly e ska ’ s inte rpre tation of the 1989 de finition of “ Em ploy e e ” c orre c t. S

e e , e .g. , Brown v . S. C

al. IBEW

N EC A Trust Funds , 588 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [E] a c h provision in a n
a gre e m e nt should be

c onstrue d c onsistently

with thee ntire doc um e nt suc h tha t no provision is rende re d nuga tory .” (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks omitte d). I would the re fore a ffirm

the distric t c ourt a s to thepe nsion bene fits. 

# FIL ED
AUG 29 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS