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 6-27-2008 

# M allon v . T ru s t C o N J P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1087

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

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" M allon v . T r us t C o N J " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 968. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/968NOT P 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 o. 07- 1087

___________ S A N F O R D M A L L O N ; N IC H O L A S C O T T E R ; J AM ES OUTW ATE R; GERALD J ACOB; DAV I D A. TE P P ER, A p p e llan ts
v. T RU S T CO M P ANY OF NE W J E RS E Y S E VE RA NC E P AY P L AN; P L AN ADM I NI S TRAT OR OF T HE T RUS T COM P ANY OF NE W J ERS EY S EVE RANCE P AY P L AN; NOR T H F OR K B ANK

____________________________________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C
. N o. 05- cv- 03666) D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e H ar ol d A
. A ckerm an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 24, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: J une 27, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant s chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or dergr ant i ng appel l ees ’ m ot i on for ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s a n d d e n y in g a p p e lla n ts ’ c ro s s -m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.2

F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf

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

f i r m. I. W e ado pt the d i stri ctcou rt ’s reci t at i on of the fact s put forth as fo l l ow s: O n o r a b o u t Ja n u a ry7 , 2 0 0 3 , in a n ticip a tio n o f its m e rg e r w ith [appe l l ee] N or th For k B ank ( “N or th For k”) , T rus tC om panyof N ew J er s ey ( “TC N J ”) adopt ed the Trus tC om panyof N ew J er s eySever ance PayPl an ( the “Pl an”)
. T he part i es agr ee thatthe Pl an cons t i tut es an empl oy ee w el far e bene fi tpl an underthe Em pl oy ee Ret i r ementI ncome Secur i tyA ctof 1 9 7 4 (“ E R IS A ” ), 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 0 1 , e t. s e q . [A ppel l ant s ] Sanfor d M al l on, N icho las C o tt er, Jam es O u tw ater, G era ld Ja co b , an d D av id T ep p er w ere e m p lo y e e s o f

T C N J. O n M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , N o rth F o rk c o m p lete d its ac q u isi ti o n o f T C N J. N o rth F o rk o ff ere d em p loym en t t o all [a p p ell an ts] , a n d th e yb e c a m e e m p lo y e e s o f N o rt h F o rk a s o f

M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 4
. [A ppel l ant s ] cont end thatthe condi t i ons of thei rempl oym ent change d s ubs t ant i al l yand detr i m ent al l ypos t - m er ger . Forexampl e, [ a p p e llan t] M a llo n c laim s h e w a s d e m o ted f ro m S e n io r V ice -P re sid e n t to R eg ion al V ice-P reside n t, an d the o ther [ ap p ell an ts] claim theyw ere d e m o te d f

ro m R e g io n a l S a le s M a n a g e rs to A c c o u n t E x e c u tiv e s . [A p p ell an ts] also all eg e tha t th eir m an ag erial an d su p erv isoryd u ti es w ere s i gni fi cant l yr educe d. [A ppel l ant s ] w or ked i n r es i dent i al m or t gage l endi ng, and theycl ai m thatN or th For k deci ded t o [de] emphasi ze thatl i ne of bus i nes s . C ons equent l y , acc or di ng t o [appe l l ant s ] , thei rcomm i s s i ons d e c lin e d a s w e ll. [ A p p e llan ts] c laim th a t th e ir c o m p e n sa tio n w a s la rg e ly determ i ned bycom m i ssi on s, so t heyargue t hat this reduct i on i n b usi ness h a d a se rio u s e f

f e c t. [A p p e llee s] d isp u te th e se c o n ten tio n s, e sp e c iallyw ith regar d to [app el l ants ’] du t i es and the reducti on i n thei r earned com m i ssi on s. I n J ul yand A ugus t2004, eac h [appe l l ant ] not i fi ed N or th For k that th e yd e e me d th e ms e l v e s c o n s tru c t i v e l yd i s c h a r g e d b e c a u s e , i n th e i rv i e w, N orth F ork detr i m ental l ychan ged their“du t i es, res po nsi bil i t i es, j ob t i t l e[s] and compens at i on” s uch thatthe cha nges w er e “t ant amount t o t erm i nat i on. ” O ne dayaft ereac h [appe l l ant ] gave not i ce of cons truct i ve di s char ge, eac h [appe l l ant ] fi l ed a c l ai m fors ever ance benef i t s underthe Pl an. E ach [appe l l ant ] s ubs equent l yr ece i ved a l ett erdat ed N ovember4, 2004[, ] fr om the P l an A dm i nis trat or deny i ng each [ app el l ant’ s] severance cl ai m becau se eac h [appe l l ant ’ s ] empl oym entw as not“i nvol unt ar i l yt erm i nat ed asI n eac h l ett er , the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at ors t at ed: 1
a ) th a t th e re sp e c tiv e c laim a n ts “ ten d e re d [ th e ir] re sig n a tio n , w h ich is n o t a q u a lify in g e v e n t;” b) thatthe “Pl an does notr ecogni ze ‘ cons truct i ve di s char ge’ as a qual i fy i ng e v e n t;” c) that“[a ] s s um i ng, ar guendo, thats uch an e ventw er e qual i fy i ng, no cons truct i ve t erm i nat i on occurr ed; ” bec aus e “a tthe t i m e of the mer ger [they ] acc ept ed and w or ked fora s ubs t ant i al per i od of t i m e i n a pos i t i on of c o m p a ra b le e m p lo ym e n t, as d e f in e d b yth e S e v e ra n c e P lan ;” d) thatthe cl ai m s w er e exc es s i ve bec aus e theyw er e “ba s ed on compens at i on o th e r th a n a n n u a lize d b a se sa lar y ;” e) that “[ c]o m m issi o n s are n o t t o b e c o n side red in co m p u ti n g b ase salary underSever ance Pl an Sect i on 2. 7, as theycons t i tut e a f or m of ‘ overt i m e, bonus es , s peci al pr emi um and al l ow ance s , ’ ” and f ) th a t th e c la im s w e re e x c e s s iv e b e c a u s e e a c h c la im a n t w a s “ n o t a n o f f ic e r,” “pr ovi ded no evi dence that[they ] w er e an of fi cer , ” and thatT C N J and N o rth F o rk re co rds, i n clud ing tho se p rov ided b ythe c lai m an ts, “c o n firm 3 r equi r ed bythe Sever ance PayPl an as a condi t i on of el i gi bi l i tyfor b e n e f its.” T h e P lan A d m in istra to r iss u e d a n a m e n d e d n o tice o f d e n ial to eac h [appe l l ant ] on D ece m ber10, 2004. T hi s amended not i ce, w hi ch canc el l ed and s uper cede d t he i ni t i al N ovember4 not i ce, el abor at ed upon the r eas ons fordeni al
. E ach a m ended not i ce of deni al s t at ed thateac h [ a p p e llan t’s] c laim w a s d e n ied b e c a u se e m p lo ym e n t w a s n o t in v o lu n tar ily ter m in a ted a n d b e c a u se , “a ss u m in g th a t [ ] e m p lo ym e n t w a s in v o lu n tar ily t erm i nat ed as r equi r ed, neverthel es s [the] cl ai m forbenef i t s i s exce s s i ve due t o the fa ctthat[] bas e payi s i ncorr ect l ycomput ed as [] compensa t i on w as n o t e n tir e ly b a s e p a y .” A l l [appe l l ant s ] fi l ed a t i m el yadmi ni s tr at i ve appe al of the deni al and su b m itt e d a d d iti o n a l d o c u m e n tatio n in su p p o rt o f th e a p p e a l. B ylette r to eac h [appe l l ant ] dat ed J ul y11, 2005, the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at ordeni ed ea ch a p p e a l. 1that[they ] w er e not[] offi cer [s ]
. ” 4 O n Ju ly2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , ap p ell an ts fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyagai ns tT he Trus tC om panyof N ew J er s eySever ance Pay Pl an, T he Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orof the Trus tC om panyof N ew J er s eySever ance Pl an, and N o rth F o rk B a n k a lleg in g th e w ro n g f u l d e n ial o f

se v e ra n c e b e n e f

its u n d e r th e P lan in
v i o l a t i o n o f

E RI S A. A p p e llee s m o v e d f o r ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s w h ile a p p e llan ts fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . O n D ece m ber12, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed
a p p e lle e s ’ m o tio n a n d d e n ie d a p p e lla n ts ’ m o tio n . II. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is c a s e u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 b e c a u s e it a ro s e u n d e r E R IS A . W e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291 overthe fi nal j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourt . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntunderFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( c)
. See Leam erv. Fauver , 288 F. 3d 532, 535 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; s ee a l s o G r een v. Fund A s s etM gm t . , 245 F. 3d 2 1 4 , 2 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). A s w ith a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n , w e m u st “ v iew th e f a c ts present ed in the p l eadings and the inferences t o b e draw n ther efrom i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party . ” G r een, 245 F. 3d at220. W hen r evi ew i ng a deni al of
s u mma ryj u d g me n t , o u rs c o p e o f r e v i e w i s a l s o p l e n a ry . I n b o th c a s e s , we a p p l yth e s a me testas th e d istri ct co u rtsh o u ld h av e a p p li ed init ial ly
. S ee D ew itt v. Pe n n -D el D ir ec toryT he Pl an her e gr ant s the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at ordi s cr et i on overdet erm i ni ng 2 el i gi bi l i tyforbenef

i t s . Sect i on 4. 1 of the Pl an, t i t l ed “ The Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or , ” s t at es th a t “[ t]h e P lan A d m in istra to r sh a ll ad m in iste r th is P lan , an d f u rn ish a ll n o tice s a n d d o a ll f ili n g s, a c c o rd in g to law , an d sh a ll h a v e th e p o w e r, in its so le d isc re tio n , to im p lem e n t, o p e ra te a n d in terp re t th is P lan , to d e ter m in e a ll q u e stio n s re latin g to e lig ib ili tyf o r b e n e f its u n d e rth e P l a n , a n d , f

u r th e r , t o t a k e s u c h o th e ra c t i o n a s th e P l a n Ad mi n i s tr a t o rd e e ms equi t abl e underthe ci r cumst ance i n l i ghtof the purpos e of thi s Pl an. ” 5 C o rp ., 1 0 6 F .3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 n .4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). III . A . St andard of R evi ew A ppel l ant s fi r s tar gue thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n r evi ew i ng the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s deci s i on t oo defe r ent i al l y . I n Fi r es t one Ti r e & R ubberC om panyv. Bru c h , 4 8 9 U. S
. 1 0 1 , 1 1 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , th e S u p r e me Co u r ti n s tru c t e d th a t , u n d e rE RI S A § 502( a) ( 1) ( B ) , 29 U
. S. C
. § 1132( a) ( 1) ( B ) , “i f a be nefi tpl an gi ves di s cr et i on t o an adm i nis trat or or fi du ci aryw ho i s operat i ng un der a con fl i ctof int eres t , that confli ctm ust be w ei ghed as a fa ct ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherther e i s an abus e of di s cr et i on. ” ( ci t at i on 2
a n d in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d b ra c k e ts o m itt e d ); se e a lso N o o rilyv . T h o m a s & B e tts C orp. , 188 F. 3d 153, 159 ( 3d C i r . 1999)
. B as ed upon thati ns truct i on, i n Pi nt o v. R el i ance S tan d a rd L if

e In su ra n c e , 2 1 4 F .3 d 3 7 7 , 3 9 2 -9 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), w e a d o p ted a slid in g sc a le appr oach t o cas es i nvol vi ng an appa r entconfl i ctof i nt er es t , “ca l i br at i ng the i nt ens i tyof
o u r[ a rb i tr a r ya n d c a p r i c i o u s ] r e v i e w t o th e i n t e n s i tyo f th e c o n f l i c t . ” F o re x a mp l e , we have he l d thatw hen an e m pl oy eri s di r ect l yfundi ng a port i on of a pl an and w oul d ther eby
s t and t o benef

i tfi nanci al l yfr om the deni al of a c urr entempl oy ee’ s cl ai m , a “s om ew hatI n appl y i ng the s l i di ng s cal e appr oach, a courtm ayal s o t ake i nt o acc ountthe 3 s ophi s t i cat i on of the part i es , the i nform at i on acc es s i bl e t o the part i es , and the part i cul ar fi nanci al arr angementi nvol ved. See Pi nt o, 214 F. 3d at392. I ti s al s o r el evantw hether the c lai m an t seek ing b en ef it s w as th en the f

idu ciary ’s em p loy ee , as to w h o m there are confl i ct - m i t i gat i ng fac t or s s uch as l os s of m or al e and hi gherw age de m ands , ora form er empl oy ee, as t o w hom thos e mi t i gat i ng fac t or s ar e notpr es ent . See K os i ba v. M er ck & C o. , 38 4 F
. 3d 58 , 65 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). F i nall y , “dem on strat ed p rocedu ral i rr egu l ari ty , bias , or unf ai rness i n the r eview of the cl ai m ant’ s appli cat i on for ben efi t s” w arr ants a hei ght ened s t andar d of r evi ew . I d. at66. 6 height ened ” st and ard of revi ew app l i es. S ee S m at hers v. M ult i -To ol, Inc. / M ult i
-- P l ast i cs, Inc. E m ploy ee H eal th an d W el fare Plan, 29 8 F
. 3d 19 1, 19 9 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). S uch a case p rese n ts a co n fli ct of

interest th at, alth o u g h n o t extrao rdin ary , w arran ts a “m o re penetr at i ng r evi ew of [a n] admi ni s tr at or ’ s deci s i onm aki ng pr oces s . ” I d. 3 T h e d istri ct co u rtp lai n lystat ed that itw as a p p ly ing a sli g h tl yh eigh tene d stan d ard of r evi ew i n l i ne w i th t he r equi r ement s of ca s es s uch as Fi r es t one and Pi nt o. I n arr i vi ng at th is co n clus ion , the d istri ct co u rtp rop erlytoo k into a cc o u n t al l r elev an t fac tors that

— pot ent i al l y— coul d have he i ght ened i t s s crut i nyeven f ur ther
. Fori ns t ance , the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed thatthe Pl an w as funded outof N or th For k’ s oper at i ng funds and that the appe l l ant s w er e form er , notcurr ent , empl oy ees of N or th For k. B ut , as the di s tr i ct
c o u rt a lso n o ted , the re w a s n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a ss e rtio n s o f p ro c e d u ra l an o m a lies in the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s deci s i ons thatw oul d have pl ace d thi s cas e atthe l eas tdefe r ent i al end of the r ange of

r evi ew . C f. Pi nt o, 214 F. 3d at394. I m por t ant l y , eac h of the
a p p e lla n ts w a s tr e a te d in a lik e f a s h io n u n d e r t h e P la n A d m in is tr a to r’ s in te rp re ta tio n . G i ven the fa ct s pr es ent ed her e, w e fi nd thatthe s t andar d of r evi ew adopt ed bythe di s tr i ctA s the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, appel l ant s fai l ed t o as s ertthatN or th For k had for ced 4 them t o r es i gn due t o an i m pr operm ot i ve i n vi ol at i on of ER I SA § 510, 29 U
. S. C
. § 1140. T hus , ourr evi ew i s confi ned t o w hetherthe Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orvi ol at ed the t erm s of the Pl an i t s el f. See J oy ce v. R J R N abi s co H ol di ngs C orp. , 126 F. 3d 166, 176 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( addr es s i ng a cons truct i ve di s char ge cl ai m underthe aus pi ces of ER I SA § 510 w hi ch pr ovi des foran “‘ obj ect i ve s t andar d, ’ w hi ch as ks w hetherthe empl oy er‘ cr eat ed condi t i ons s o i nt ol er abl e thata r eas onabl e per s on w oul d r es i gn’ ”) ; s ee a l s o B er gerv. E dgew at erSt eel C o. , 911 F. 2d 911, 923 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( cons trui ng the t erm ’ s appl i cat i on u n d e r E R IS A § 5 1 0 ). W e n o te th a t o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd su g g e sts th a t, i f w e w e re to r eac h the ques t i on, appel l ant s w oul d have f ai l ed t o m eetthi s cons truct i ve di s char ge s ta n d a rd
. 7 c o u rt su f f icie n tlya c c o u n ted f

o r th e P lan A d m in istra to r’s p o ten tial c o n f licts o f in ter e st; thus , the degr ee of

the s crut i nym at ched the degr ee of the conf l i ctpr es ent ed. See Pi nt o, 2 1 4 F . 3 d at 39 2 (“W e thin k the b est w ayto ‘co n side r’ th ese p o tential lyrelev an t fac tors ( i n thi s cas e, the s tructur al confl i ctof i nt er es t ) i s t o us e them t o hei ght en ourdegr ee of
s c ru tin y , w ith o u t a c tu a lly sh if tin g th e b u rd e n a w a yf

ro m th e p la in tif

f ” ). B . P l an A dm i ni s t rat or’ s D eci s i on A p p e llan ts f

u rth e r a rg u e th a t th e P lan A d m in istra to r e rre d in c o n stru in g th e P lan in
su c h a w a yth a t ap p e llan ts w e re d e n ied e lig ib ili tyf o r se v e ra n c e b e n e f

its d u e to th e ir
res i gn at i on s. S ect i on 50 2(a) (1) (B ) of E R ISA , 29 U . S
. C
. § 1 13 2(a) (1) (B ), gives a p a rticip a n t o r b e n e f

icia ryth e rig h t to b rin g a c iv il ac tio n “ to re c o v e r b e n e f its d u e to h im underthe t erm s of hi s pl an, t o enfor ce hi s r i ght s underthe t erm s of the pl an, ort o cl ar i fy hi s r i ght s t o futur e bene fi t s underthe t erm s of the pl an. ” I n r evi ew i ng the dec i s i on of a 4 P lan A d m in istra to r, w e c o n sid e r th e f o llo w in g f

a c to rs: “ (1 ) w h e th e r th e in terp re tatio n is
cons i s t entw i th t he goal s of the Pl an; ( 2) w hetheri tr ender s anyl anguage i n the Pl anG r ant i ng appel l ees ’ m ot i on forj udgm ent , the di s tr i ctcourtm ade the fol l ow i ng 5 concl us i ons conce r ni ng the r eas onabl enes s of the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on:

T he pr ovi s i on i n Sect i on 3. 1 of the Pl an pr ecl udi ng el i gi bi l i tyfor o th e rw ise e lig ib le e m p lo y e e s w h o re f u se a n o f f e r o f c o m p a ra b le empl oym enti s notr ender ed meani ngl es s ori nt ernal l yi ncons i s t entbythe P lan A d m in istra to r’s re a d in g o f th e P lan . T h e P lan d icta tes th a t an e lig ib le empl oy ee be comes i nel i gi bl e fors ever ance benef i t s i f he ors he dec l i nes an o f f e r o f c o m p a ra b le e m p lo ym e n t. H o w e v e r, as [ a p p e llee s] a rg u e , this 8 m eani ngl es s ori nt ernal l yi ncons i s t ent ; ( 3) w hetheri tconfl i ct s w i th the s ubs t ant i ve or pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of the ER I SA s t atut e; ( 4) w hetherthe [r el evantent i t i es have] in terp re ted th e p ro v isio n a t issu e c o n sis ten tly ; an d (5 ) w h e th e r th e in terp re tatio n is contr aryt o t he cl earl anguage of the Pl an. ” M oench v. R obert s on, 62 F. 3d 553, 566 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); s e e a ls o D e w itt, 1 0 6 F .3 d a t 5 2 0
. W e begi n w i th t he “w or ds of the Pl an. ” B ol l m an H atC o. v. R oot , 112 F. 3d 113, 116 ( 3d C i r . 1997)
. I n pert i nentpart , the Pl an pr ovi des the fol l ow i ng:

3 .1 E lig ib ilit y fo r S e v e r a n c e . Subj ectt o Sect i on 3. 2, an Em pl oy ee w hos e empl oym enti s i nvol unt ar i l yt erm i nat ed bythe C om panybeca us e of p erm an en t l ay o ff

, term ination o ther tha n fo r C au se (a s d ef ined b elow ), t erm i nat i on foreconomi c r eas ons , r educt i on- i n- for ce, fac i l i tycl os i ng, r eor gani zat i on orcons ol i dat i on, s hal l be el i gi bl e fors ever ance pay det erm i ned i n acc or dance w i th Sect i on 3. 3; pr ovi ded, how ever , thatan E m p lo y e e , w h o is o f

f e re d e m p lo ym e n t b yth e C o m p a n yth a t is c o m p a ra b le to su c h E m p lo y e e ’s th e n c u rre n t p o sitio n b u t w h o re f u se s s u c h c o m p a ra b le e m p lo ym e n t, s h a ll n o t b e e lig ib le to re c e iv e s e v e ra n c e p a yu n d e r t h is P la n . F o r p u rp o se s o f

th e f o re g o in g , an o f

f e r o f e m p lo ym e n t sh a ll b e d e e m e d to be “c om par abl e” i f i ti s fora pos i t i on thati s s i m i l art o the Em pl oy ee’ s then curr entpos i t i on, pr ovi des foran annua l bas e s al aryatl eas tequal t o the E m pl oy ee’ s then curr entbas e s al aryand i s l ocat ed w i thi n the St at e of N ew J er s eyno m or e than tw enty - fi ve ( 25) m i l es fr om the l ocat i on of the E m pl oy ee’ s then curr entpos i t i on. 5pr ovi s i on does notnece s s ar i l ym ean thatan otherw i s e in e lig ib le

e m p lo y e e
— in e lig ib le b e c a u se th e e m p lo y e e ten d e re d h is r es i gnat i on— becomes el i gi bl e i f he ors he f ail s t o r ece i ve an of

ferof compar abl e empl oym ent . T he Pl an onl yr equi r es cons i der at i on of c o m p a ra b le e m p lo ym e n t w h e re a n e m p lo y e e re f u se d a p o sitio n w ith N o rth For k, and does notdi r ect l ycont empl at e cons i der at i on, as [appe l l ant s ] ur ge, of w hetheran acce

pt ed o f f e r c o n stitu tes c o m p a ra b le e m p lo ym e n t. * * * T h is C o u rt c o u ld im a g in e a n in terp re tatio n o f th e P lan th a t w o u ld al l ow el i gi bi l i tyforcons truct i ve di s char ge, and mi ghti ndeed ha ve made s uch an i nt erpr et at i on i f i tw er e cons i der i ng the Pl an l anguage as a mat t erof fi r s ti m pr es s i on . . . E ven cons i der i ng the s l i ght l yhei ght ened r evi ew appl i cabl e her e and the more penetr at i ng i nqui ryi tr equi r es , the Pl an A d m in istra to r’s in terp re tatio n m e e ts th e sta n d a rd o u tli n e d b yo u r C irc u it i n D ew itt and o ther c ase s. T h is C o u rtco n clud es th at th e P lan A d m inistrator’s i nt erpr et at i on of the Pl an t o pr ecl ude s ever ance benef i t s el i gi bi l i tyfor con struct i ve d i scharge w as not arbitraryand capri ci ou s. 9 W e agr ee s ubs t ant i al l yw i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s opi ni on. H er e, the Pl an A d m inistrator’s interpre tat ion w as re aso n ab le as itn eith er ren d ere d an yo f th e P lan’s l anguage m eani ngl es s ori ncons i s t entnordi d i tconfl i ctw i th the pl ai n l anguage of the Pl an. A s the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe Pl an does notr ecogni ze c ons truct i ve di s char ge as a qual i fy i ng eventw as notarbi tr aryor capr i ci ous , even unde ra hei ght ened s t andar d. U nderthe t erm s of the Pl an, the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at ordet erm i ned thatappel l ant s ’ vol unt aryr es i gnat i on pr ecl uded them from fal l i ng underthe t erm s of § 3. 1 beca us e the Pl an pr ovi des s ever ance benef i t s t o an
em ploy ee w ho “i s t erm i nated on or aft er the E ffecti ve D at e. ” T he b ulk of ap pell ants ’ arg u m en t, in f

ac t, is be li ed b ythe p u rpo se o f th e P lan to fo r “inv o lun taryterm ina[ ti o n ] byIn v o lu n ta ry te rm in a tio n u n d e r t h e P la n o c c u rs f o r o n e o f s ix s p e c if

ic re a s o n s . 6 O ne of thes e s i x r eas ons i s “otherthan forC aus e” w hi ch coul d fai r l yencompas s a gr eat d ea l of situ ati o n s. T h e P lan A d m inistrator’s interpre tat ion , h o w ev er, r en d ers this t erm n e ith e r m e a n in g le s s n o r w ith o u t c o n te n t. 10 the C om pany. ” T h is in te rp re ta tio n w a s re a s o n a b le . S e e g e n e ra lly F ra n k v . C o lt I n d u s .,

6 In c ., 9 1 0 F .2 d 9 0 , 1 0 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (d e ter m in in g th a t sin c e re q u ire m e n t f o r e lig ib ili ty fo r be n ef it s w as term ination , an d em p loy ee s v o lun tari lyresign ed b ef o re the yw ere actual l yt erm i nat ed, empl oy ees coul d notbe dee m ed “e ffe ct i vel yt erm i nat ed” a nd thus
e lig ib le f o r se v e ra n c e b e n e f

its). F u rth e r, n o P lan p a rticip a n t re a d in g su c h lan g u a g e w o u ld h a v e b e e n le d to b e lie v e d if f e re n tly. G ener al l y , the i nt erpr et at i on of a s ever ance pl an i s a fa ct - s peci fi c i nqui ryi n w hi ch pr ece dentpr ovi des us l i t t l e gui dance
. Si gni fi cant l y , how ever , the Pl an her e, unl i ke
s ever ance pl ans i n othercas es cons trui ng i ns t ance s of cons truct i ve di s char ge byan empl oy er , does notpr ovi de fort erm i nat i on by an em pl oyee due t o a s i gni fi cantr educt i on i n dut i es orot herdel et er i ous ci r cumst ance . C f. Sm i th v. U ni t ed Tel evi s i on, I nc. Speci al Sever ance Pl an, 474 F. 3d 1033, 1035 ( 8th C i r . 2007) ( det erm i ni ng w hetherr es i gnat i on
w as for“G ood R eas on” w her e pl an pr ovi ded fors ever ance due t o “r educt i on i n s al aryor b o n u s o p p o rtu n ity ” ); M a rk s v . N e w c o u rt C re d it G ro u p , In c ., 3 4 2 F .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 8 -4 5 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a c tu a l term in a tio n w a s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to
es t abl i s hi ng a qual i fy i ng t erm i nat i on undera bene fi t s pl an r ecogni zi ng qual i fy i ng ter m in a tio n s b yth e e m p lo y e e b e c a u se , am o n g o th e r re a so n s, th e c o m p a n ysig n if ica n tly11

r educe d the empl oy ee’ s dut i es ) ; D abert i n v. H C R M anorC ar e, I nc. , 373 F. 3d 822, 827- 28 ( 7th C i r . 2004) ( exami ni ng w hetherj ob al t er at i ons amount ed t o a r educt i on i n s cope of pos i t i on w her e s ever ance pl an cove r ed “t erm i nat i on bythe Part i ci pantforG ood R eas on”)
. W e have no author i tyher e t o r edr aftthe Pl an i n an ef for tt o bl untthe i m por tof i t s l anguage excl udi ng s uch a pr ovi s i on. I tw oul d al s o s tr ai n the conf i nes of ourr evi ew h ere to h o ld tha t th e P lan A d m inistrator ab u sed it s d iscreti o n b yem p h asizing the P lan’s
r equi r ementthata cove r ed t erm i nat i on be “bythe C om pany . ” In a d d iti o n , ap p e llan ts h a d n o c laim f o r se v e ra n c e b e n e f

its b a se d o n “ c o m p a ra b le
e mpl oyment , ” ora l a c k the r e of , be y on d whatw a s pr ov i de d f ori n the Pl a n. “ ER I SA
r equi r es ‘ thatanycontr actual l yacc rued r i ght s be di s cerni bl e fr om the w r i t t en t erm s of the form al E R I SA pl an document s themsel ves . ’ ” H ooven v. E xxon M obi l C orp. , 465 F. 3d 566, 573 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng C arrv. Fi r s tN at i onw i de B ank, 816 F. Supp. 1476, 1490 (N .D .C a l.19 9 3 )); se e a lso 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a )(1 )(B ). “A lth o u g h w e o c c a sio n a lly empl oyuni l at er al contr actconce pt s i n E R I SA cas es , w e do s o onl yw her e ‘ the as s ert ed
u n ilate ra l co n tra c t is b a se d o n th e e x p licit p ro m ise s in th e E R IS A p lan d o c u m e n ts them selv es.’” Id. at 57 3 (qu o ti n g C arr, 8 1 6 F . S u p p . at 14 9 0 -91 ). A s the d istri ct co u rt not ed , the Pl an r equi r es cons i der at i on of “c om par abl e empl oym ent ” o n ly w her e an empl oy ee decl i nes a n o f f e r o f c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t w ith N o rt h F o rk
. T hus , underthe t erm s of the Pl an, appel l ant s coul d have c l ai m ed bene fi t s for i nvol unt aryt erm i nat i on i f theydecl i ned an of ferthattheydeemed notcompar abl e and12

th e n f ile d s u it. A p p e llan ts, h o w e v e r, w o u ld h a v e h a d to re f u se e m p lo ym e n t w ith N o rth F ork i n o rderfor the co urt s t o q uest i on w hetherthe actual off er w i th N orthfo rk w as,
u n d e r th e ter m s o f

th e P lan , co m p a ra b le to th e ir c u rre n t p o sitio n s. C f. O ter o C a rra sq u ill o
v. Phar m aci a C orp. , 466 F. 3d 13, 16 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( as s es s i ng w hethera r ej ect ed off erof empl oym entw as fora “c om par abl e pos i t i on”) ; Y ouchum v. B arnettB anks , I nc. S ev era n ce P ayP lan, 23 4 F . 3 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 5 -47 (11 th C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ) (de term ining w h ethe r a
r ej ected w r i t t en off

erof empl oym entw as “compar abl e empl oym ent ” underthe t erm s of a
s ever ance pl an)
. I tw as thus r eas onabl e forthe Pl an A dm i ni s tr at ort o concl ude that
a p p e llan ts, u p o n a c c e p tan c e o f th e ir p o sitio n s w ith N o rth F o rk , relin q u ish e d a ll o f th e ir
r i g h t s t o “ c o mp a r a b l e p o s i t i o n s ” u n d e rth e P l a n e v e n th o u g h th e yl a t e rb e c a me dis sat i sfi ed w i th thei r new w ork atN orth F ork. B yaccep t i ng the o ffers of new po si t i on s, ap p ell an ts ex clud ed them selv es f rom a p o tential class o f b en ef ici aries w h o w ere in v o lu n tar ilyter m in a ted a n d th e n re f u se d o f f e rs o f c o m p a ra b le s u b se q u e n t p o sitio n s w ith N o rth F o rk . S u c h a c las s o f e m p lo y e e s w o u ld n o d o u b t h a v e b e e n e lig ib le to p u t f o rth

“ c o m p a ra b le e m p lo ym e n t” c la im s u n d e r t h e p la n . C f. O te ro C a rr a s q u illo , 4 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 6
. I V. A s the d istri ct co u rtn o ted, on e m igh t disag ree w ith the P lan A d m inistrator’s in terp re tatio n o f

th e P lan . T h e P lan A d m in istra to r’s d e c isio n to d e n ya p p e llan ts
s ever ance benef

i t s i n l i ghtof i t s i nt erpr et at i on of “i nvol unt aryt erm i nat i on, ” how ever , w as
n o t arb itrar yo r c a p ric io u s. E v e n u n d e r a h e ig h ten e d sta n d a rd o f re v iew , o u r ta sk is n o t tosu b sti tute o u r view fo r th at of the P lan A d m inistrator. T h u s, w e f ind n o erro r on the p art
o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta n d wi l l a f f i r m.