-1-

06- 3923- cv R obi nson v. Sheet M et al W or ker s’ N at i onal Pens i on Fund Pl an A

1 UNITED STATE S COURT OF AP PEALS 2 3 FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 4 5 6 7 August Term, 2007 8 9 (A rgu ed : O cto be r 5, 20 07 De cid ed : F eb ruary 5 , 2 00 8 ) 10 11 Do ck et N o. 06 -39 23 -cv 12 13 14 15 16 17 ROBER T J. ROBINSO N JR., on behalf of him self and all ot hers similarly s ituated a nd 18 THOMAS J. DO NOHUE , on behalf of himself and all others similarl y situate d, 19 20 Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , 21 22 – v. – 23 24 SHEET META L W ORKER S’ NATIONAL PENSION FU ND, PLANA, MARC E. L EBLANC , 25 MICHAEL J. SULL IVAN, CHA RLES HO LT, JOHN G . AGRELA , KENNET H D. 26 ALEXAN DER, RO NALD PA LMERICK, BR UCE STO CKW ELL, PHIL MEYER S, R. DEAN 27 STEWARD and PAU L COLLINS JR ., 28 29 De fen da nts -A

pp ellees . 30 31 32 33 34 35 Before: FEINBERG, C ALABRESI, and WE SLEY, Ci rcu it J ud ges . 36 37 App el la nt s a ss er t t ha t t he ame ndmentof t he irdi sabi li ty pe ns io n, aft erth ey ha d b ec ome 38 di sabl edan d we re re ce iv in g b en efi ts fr om i t, v io la te s t he Empl oy ee Re ti re mentan d I nc ome 39 Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, and consti tutes both a breach of contrac t and a 40 breach of fiduciary dut y. Deciding, by agree ment of the parties, on a sti pulated re cord, the 41 dis tri ct c ourt f

ound fo r App ell ees on

all cla im s. 42 The appeal is di smissed as moot as to Appellant Donohue and all class mem bers over t he 43 age of fifty-five, and the judgment of the distri ct court i s affirmed as to Appellant Robinson and 44 all otherclass mem bers.Ap pe llants als o a sse rte d in the dis tri ct c ourt that App ell ees we re p rom iss ori ly e sto pp ed 1 from applying the e arnings li mitation to them. Se e R ob ins on v. Sh eet Met al W or ker s’ N at’ l Pension Fund , 441 F. Supp. 2d 405, 432-33 (D. Conn. 2006). Appellants, however , have not raised t hat issue be fore this Court; it is t herefore waived. See Dillon v. M orano , 497 F.3d 247, 25 5 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ). -2- 1 2 3 KATHR YN EMMETT, Em

mett & Glander (Christ ine 4 Caulfield, on thebr ief ), Stamford, Conn., for

Plain tiffs5 Ap pe lla nts

. 6 7 ST EP HEN M . R OS EN BL AT T, De puty G en era l C ouns el, 8 Sh eet Met al W ork ers ’ N ati on al P en sio n F un d, Al ex an dri a, 9 Va., for De fen da nts -A

pp ellees . 10 11 12 13 14 GUIDO CA LABRES I, Circuit Judge : 15 Pl aintif

fs -A pp ell ants R ob ert

Ro bin so n, Jr. an d T ho m as D on ohue an d th e cl ass the y 16 rep res ent w ere rec ipi ents o f an In du str y-R elated Di sab ili ty P en sio n (“ IRD” ) f rom De fe nd ant17 Appellee Sheet M etal Workers’ Nationa l Pensi on Fund. In 2004, the IRD was amended to add 18 an earnings l imitation. Appellant s, who were receivi ng the IRD before the 2004 amendm ent 19 we nt i nto ef

fe ct, ass ert

that th e am en dm ent’s ap pli cat ion to t he m vio lat es t he Em plo ye e 20 Re tir em en t In co m e S ecu rity A ct o f 1 97 4 (“ ERIS A” ), 2 9 U .S .C . § § 1 00 1-1 46 1, an d c on sti tut es 21 both a breach of contr act and a bre ach of fiduciary duty. The distri ct court, Kra vitz, J ., acting 1 22 on a stipula ted recor d, found for Appellees on all i ssues. Se e R ob ins on v. Sh eet Met al W or ker s’ 23 Nat’l Pension Fund , 4 41 F. Su pp . 2 d 4 05 (D . C onn. 20 06 ). A pp ell ants b rou gh t th is t im ely 24 ap pe al. 25 26 I. BACKGR OUND 27 A. The Pension Plan-3- 1 Th e S he et M eta l W ork ers ’ N ati on al P en sio n F un d is a m ult i-e m plo ye r pl an , e sta

bli sh ed in 2 19 66 . In

19 94 , th e P lan

wa s am en de d b y it s T rus tee s to inc lud e th e IR D, in a dd iti on

to i ts 3 Normal Retirement Pension, Early Retire ment Pension, and Disabilit y Pension. The IRD pays 4 benefits to par ticipant s when they are “t otally and pe rmanently unable to re turn to employment 5 in the Sheet M etal Indus try,” but ar e capable of gainful employment in som e other field. The 6 IRD i s av ail ab le t o e m plo ye es who have no t attai ne d th e N orm al R eti rem ent A ge (si xty -f ive ), 7 but w ho have ear

ne d s uf fi cie nt p en sio n and

ser vic e cr ed its . IR

D b en ef its are cal cu lat ed

as 8 fo llo ws : 9 The [IRD] shall be 10% greaterthan the amount of the Early Retir ement Pension 10 . . . , except thatin no event shal l the [IRD] exceed the Normal Retirement Pension 11 am ount .

. . that w ou ld b e p ay ab le i f t he Parti cip ant ha d atta ine d N orm al 12 Retirement Age on the day he became disabled. 13 14 El igi bil ityfo r th e IR D “ is d ete rm ine d b y th e T rus tee s, in t he ir s ole an d a

bs olute 15 discret ion,” and the Trus tees may m ake eligi bil ity subjec t to peri odic medical examinations. 16 “T he se t erm s an d anyoth er t erm s as de em ed ne ces sar y b y th e T rus tee s m aybe req uir ed as a 17 pre req

uis ite to t he granti ng or c ontin

uanc e o f an [ IRD] .” Be ne fi ciarie s who los e el igi bil ityfo r an 18 IRD on account of recovery from their disability may be entit led to a different t ype of pension, 19 including Ear ly Retirement or Normal Retirement. A partici pant who is eli gible to r eceive 20 be ne fi ts und er the Pl an“sh all be entit led up on ret ire m ent to rec eiv e th e m onthl y b en ef its 21 provided for the r emainder of his life, subject t o the provisi ons of this Plan.” 22 Th e P lan

giv es t he Tr us tee s “t he so le and

ab so lut e p ow er, autho rity and dis cre tio n” to 23 interpr et and apply t he Plan. It moreover provi des that t he Trustees may “amend[] [it] at any 24 time . . . consistent with the provisions of the Trust Agreement ” (emphasis added). Thus, the 25 Tr

us tee s’ am en din g p ow er i s li m ite d b y th e p rov isi on that “n o am en dm ent sh all be ef fe cti ve if itTh ere are tw o e xc ep tio ns to t he rul e th at n o am en dm ent can d ecr eas e th e ac cru ed be ne fi t 2 of any participa nt: (1) i f the amendm ent is nece ssary to comply with federal l aw, and (2) if the am en dm en t m eet s th e re qu ire m ents o f § 30 2(c )(8 ) of ERIS A and

§ 4 12 (c) (8) of

the Int ern al Re ve nu e C od e an d th e S ecr etary o f L ab or h as e ith er a pp rov ed it o r f ail ed to d isa pp rov e it wi thi n nin ety days . N eithe r ex cep tio n is rel ev ant he re. -4- 1 is d eem ed

to d ecr eas e th e ac cru ed

be ne fi t of

any P art ici pant. ” Un de r th e P lan , “ ‘A ccr ue d 2 2 Be ne fi t’ s ha ll m ean ge ne ral ly t

he annu al p en sio n b en ef

it p rov ide d und er the Pl anco mm en cin g at 3 No rm al R eti rem ent A ge .” Th e P lan m ore sp eci fi cal ly p rov ide s th at 4 a P lan

Am en dm ent th at h as t

he ef fe ct o f ( 1) e lim inatin g o r re du cin g an e arl y 5 ret ire m ent be ne fi t or a re tir em ent-typ e su

bs idy or ( 2) e lim inatin g an o pti on al f orm 6 of

be ne fi t (a s d ete rm ine d und er a pp lic ab le T rea sury R eg ulatio ns ), w ithres pe ct t o 7 benefits att ributabl e to servi ce before the amendment shall be treat ed as reduci ng 8 Ac cru ed

Be ne fi ts. In t

he cas e o f a

ret ire m ent-typ e su

bs idy , th e p rec ed ingsenten ce 9 sh all ap ply on ly w ithres pe ct t o a

Parti cip ant who sat isf

ies (ei the r be fo re o r af

ter 10 the amendm ent) the pr e-amendm ent conditi ons for the subsidy. I n general, a 11 retir ement-type subsidy is a subsidy thatcontinues afterretir ement, but does not 12 include a qual ified disabil ity benefit ( within the meaning of Section 411(a) (9) of 13 the Co de ), a m ed ica l be ne fi t, a

so cia l se curity s up ple m ent, o r a d eat h b en ef it 14 (in clu din g li fe ins uranc e). 15 16 The Plan also defines “ Vested Status,” which is the st atus “att ained when a Parti cipant 17 acquires a nonforfeitable ri ght to his Normal Retirement Benefit or a nonforfeitable rightto 100 18 pe rce nt o f h is A ccr ue d B en ef

it. ” Aparti cip ant ac qu ire s a n on fo rf eit ab le r ight to his No rm al 19 Re tir em en t B en ef it u po n re ach ingthe No rm al R eti rem ent A ge . 20 In accordanc e with theirobligati ons under ERISA, 29 U.S.C . § 1022, Appellees have 21 issued Summ ary Plan Descri ptions (“SPDs”), whic h summ arize t he terms of their plans. The 22 SP Ds state that th eydo no t co m pre he ns ive ly se t f

ort h a ll o f t he ter m s o f t he Pl an . T he SP Ds in 23 the Pl anbe fo re u s re pe ate dly no te that th e T rus tee s h av e th e autho rity to am en d th e P lan . T hu s, 24 the 19 97 SP D s tat es t hat “[ t] he Tr

us tee s ar e em

po we red to am en d th e P lan

at anytim e in 25 accordance wit h the law and for such purpos es as the Trustee s deem appropriate.” And the 2002 26 SPD confirm s that “[t]he Truste es reser ve the rightto amend, m odify or terminate the Pla n at anyIn October 2005, the Plan was again amended to eliminate the earnings l imitation for 3 those fifty-five or olde r. Se e in fra note 4. -5- 1 time,” and also that “ [t]he Board of Trustees reser ves the ri ght to ter minate, m odify, suspend or 2 amend the Pension Plan at any ti me, in whole or in part, under c ircumstances all owed by ERISA 3 an d th e te rm s o f t

he go ve rni ng Tr

us t A gre em ent. T he Bo ard wi ll m ak e su chch an ge s to the Pl an 4 by Plan Amendm ent. You will be noti fied in writing of any change s that ar e made.” 5 In a

No ve m be r 20 04 am en dm ent, t

he Ind us try -R elated

Di sab ili ty P en sio n w as r en am ed 6 the Industry-Related Disability Be ne fit . T he am en de d P lan , f or t he fi rst tim e, im po sed an 7 ear

nin gs lim itatio n o n IR

D b en ef its : 8 Effective for Plan years begi nning on or after Ja nuary 1, 2005, an [IRD] recipient 9 wh o e arn s $ 35 ,0 00 or m ore in anycal en dar ye ar, in anyem plo ym ent whatso ev er, 10 wi ll b e d eem ed no lon ge r di sab led

fo r any p urp os e und er the Pl anan d h is b en ef it 11 shall te rminate . . . . 12 13 IRD recipient s were notified of this change by lett er in December 2004. 3 14 15 B. Ap pe lla nts 16 Ro be rt R ob ins on , Jr., wh o w as b orn in 1 95 5, be gan w ork ingin t he sh eet m eta l tr ad e in 17 19 73 . A ft er a

hip rep lac em ent surge ry i n 1 99 9, he ap pli ed fo r th e IR

D. Th e ap pli cat ion

fo rm 18 stated

that he wo uld

“re cei ve the m onthl y b en ef it p aym ent li ste d f

or [ his ] l if

eti m e. ” It als o n ote d 19 that “P lan

rul es p roh ibi t a p en sio ne r re cei vin g an [ IRD] to w ork in D isq ua lif yin g E m plo ym ent, 20 BU T a llo ws [ sic ] anyoth er e m plo ym ent w ith out an

ear nin gs ’ li m itatio n. ” H is a

pp lic ati on

wa s 21 grante d, an d h e b eg anrec eiv ingIRD b en ef its

. 22 Th omas Don oh ue be ga n wo rk in g i n t he sh ee t me ta l i ndus try i n 1 96 9. In 19 98 , h e b ec ame 23 disabled. At t he time, he was fifty-five years old and t herefore had the opt ion of retiri ng on 24 either a n Early Retir ement Pension or an IRD. Because the IRD offered greate r benefits, heTh e P lan wa s ag ain

am en de d in

Oc tob er 2 00 5 to res tri ct the ear nin gs lim itatio n to tho se 4 un de r th e ag e o f f

if ty- fi ve . D on ohue is the ref ore no w una ff

ect ed bythe lim itatio n, an d h is claim—along with the cl aims of other class mem bers over t he age of fifty-five—is now moot. Ro bin so n and

the rem ain de r of

the cla ss m em

be rs are, ho we ve r, u

na ff ect ed . T he Su

pre m e C ourt ha s h eld that th e m oo tne ss o f t

he cla im s o f e ve n th e on lylea d p lai nti ff do es n ot m oo t a c las s action. Se e K

rem en s v. Ba rtley , 4 31 U. S. 11 9, 12 9-3 0 (1 97 7); Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., Inc

. , 4 24 U. S. 74 7, 75 5-5 6 (1 97 6); Sosna v. Iowa , 4 19 U. S. 39 3, 39 9 (1 97 5). It f oll ow s a fo rti or i that th e m oo tne ss o f t

he cla im s o f o ne of

tw o le ad pla int if fs do es n ot m oo t th e cl ass act ion , s o lon g a s “t he re are q ue sti on s o f l awor f

act co mm on to t he cla ss” an d “ the rep res entat ive parti es will fairly a nd adequately pr otect the interes ts of the class .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), ( 4). As that is the cas e h ere , w e p roc eed to c on sid er the m eri ts a s to Ro bin so n and tho se c las s m em

be rs un de r th e ag e o f f

if ty- fi ve . -6- 1 selecte d that opti on. 2 In January 2005, Robinson fil ed an administrati ve appeal prot esting the Novem ber 2004 3 am en dm en t an d it s ap pli cat ion to h is b en ef

its . T his ap pe al w as d en ied . In June 20 05 , h e f

ile d 4 thi s ac tio n; i n S ep tem be r 20 05 , it

wa s am en de d to ad d D on ohue as a pla int if f. Ap pe llants the n 5 m ov ed

to c ert if y th e ca se a s a c las s ac tio n, an d th e p art ies ag ree d o n a joi nt s tip ulatio n a s to 6 cer

tif icatio n. Th e d ist

ric t co urt cer tif ied a cl ass of “[ a] ll r ece ipi ents o f an [ IRD] fr om the Pl an 7 wh o c om

m en ced rec eiv ingan[I RD ] at any ti m e d uri ng the pe rio d o f J anuary 1 , 1 99 4 to 8 De cem

be r 31 , 2 00 4. ” Sh ort ly t he rea ft er, the parti es a gre ed to s eek jud gm ent on

a st ipu lat ed 4 9 rec ord . A nd

on Ju ly 2 7, 20 06 , th e d ist

ric t co urt fo un d f or A pp ell ees on

all co unts. 10 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 Before us, Appellants as sert thr ee claims. First, t hey argue thatapplying the e arnings 13 limitation to t heir IRDs would viola te ERISA’s “anti- cutback” rul e, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g). 14 Second, they contend t hat the ear nings limitation c onstitut es a breach of contr act. And finally, 15 the y a sse rt that th e earni ng s li m itatio n w ou ld, as t o th em , b e a b rea chof Ap pe lle es’ fi du ciary 16 dutie s. 17 W e note first t hat Appellant s’ fiduciary dut ies clai m derives from the contra ct clai m, the-7- 1 ERIS A c lai m , o r bo th. If Ap pe lle es o we d a

fi du ciary d

uty to A pp ell ants i n th is c ase , it

m us t 2 have ari sen

as a res ult of co ntr act ua l or statut ory ob lig ati on s. An d h en ce anyfi du ciary d uty 3 cla im

de pe nd s f

or i ts s urv iva l on

the va lid ityof

the se l att er c lai m s. It i s th ese we the ref ore m us t 4 ex am ine

. 5 The distri ct court t horoughly analyz ed Appellants’ ERISA anti-cutback c laims and 6 reject ed them. Robinson , 441 F. Supp. 2d at 416-26. We concur completely in that por tion of 7 the dis tri ct c ourt’ s o pin ion . In parti cu lar , w e ag ree wi th t hat co urt that th e IR

D i s a w elf

are 8 be ne fi t pl an , n ot a pe ns ion plan, as t ho se t erm s ar e u sed

in E RI SA . W e m ore ov er a gre e w ithits 9 de ter

m inatio n th at t

he IRD i s an

an cil lar y b en ef it, no t an acc rue d b en ef

it. Ei the r of

the se 10 fi nd ing s w ou ld s uf fi ce t o e xe m

pt t he IRD f rom ERIS A’ s anti- cutba ck

rul e. 11 W e turn n ex t to Ap pe llants ’ br eac h o f c ontra ct c lai m . B eca us e th e d ist

ric t co urt ’s 12 jud gm en t w as b ase d e nti rel y o n a sti pu lat ed

rec ord , o ur s tan dard o f r ev iewfo r th at c lai m is de 13 no vo . Skoros v. City of N.Y. , 4 37 F. 3d

1, 13 (2d Ci r. 2 00 6). W e h av e h eld that, “ ab sent expli cit 14 lan gu ag e to the co ntr ary , a plan d oc um ent pr ov idi ng fo r di sab ili ty b en ef its pro m ise s th at the se 15 be ne fi ts v est

wi th r esp ect

to an e m plo ye e n o later

than th e ti m e th at the em plo ye e b eco m es 16 dis ab led .” Feifer v. Prudent ial Ins. Co. of Am ., 30 6 F .3 d 1 20 2, 12 12 (2d Ci r. 2 00 2). Ap pe lle es 17 thus bear t he burden of identifying “e xplicitlanguage res erving [the Fund’s] rightto terminate or 18 alt er a

dis ab led em plo ye e’s be ne fi ts. ” Gibbs ex rel. Est ate of Gibbs v. CIGNA Corp. , 440 F.3d 19 57 1, 57 7 (2 d C ir. 20 06 ) (i nte rna l qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed ). 20 Ap pe lle es a sse rt that th eir statem ents— in b oth

the Pl anan d th e S PD s— wh ich no te that 21 the Trustee s may am end the Plan atany time suffice to satisfy this r equirement. We agree. As 22 no ted

ab ov e, bo th t

he Pl anits elf

an d th e S PD s st ate that th e T rus tee s m ayam en d th e P lan “at 23 any ti m e. ” T he so le e xp res s ex cep tio n to thi s am en din g p ow er i s th at n o am en dm ent m ayred uc e-8- 1 anacc rue d b en ef

it. Th e co ntr act

ua l qu est ion , th ere fo re, be co m es: did the am en dm ent re du ce an 2 acc rue d b en ef

it? And the an sw er t o th at q

ue sti on , in

tur n, de pe nd s o n a

ser ies of linke d 3 de fi nit ion s th at are g ive n in the Pl an . W e ex am ine the se i n d eta il. 4 (1) Th e P lan say s, fi rst , th at an am en dm ent th at r ed uc es a ret ire m ent-typ e su

bs idy is 5 treate d as reducing a n accrued benefit . (2) It goe s on to define “a re tirement-type subs idy [as] a 6 subsidy thatcontinues afterretir ement,” but m akes clearthat such a r etirement-type s ubsidy 7 “does not incl ude a qualified di sabilit y benefit (withi n the meaning of Section 411(a) (9) of the 8 Co de ).” (3) Th at s ect ion of the Int ern al R ev enue Co de pro vid es t hat “a qu ali fi ed dis ab ili ty 9 be ne fi t is a d isa

bil itybe ne fi t pr ov ide d b y a plan whic h d oe s n ot e xc eed the be ne fi t whic h w ou ld 10 be provided for the pa rtici pant if he separa ted from the service at nor mal retirement age.” 26 11 U. S. C. § 4 11 (a) (9) (B ). 12 Th is l att er d ef ini tio n s ett les the co ntr act ua l m att er b ef

ore us , f or: 13 (1) The Plan expl icitl y states t hat the IRD cannot “ exceed the Normal Retirement 14 Pe ns ion am ount .

. . that w ou ld b e p ay ab le i f t he Parti cip ant ha d atta ine d N orm al 15 Retirement Age on the day he became disabled.” 16 (2) Th is m ean s th at the IRD c anno t ex cee d th e b en ef it whic h w ou ld b e p rov ide d if 17 the parti cip ant se parat ed fr om em plo ym ent at

the no rm al r eti rem ent ag e. 18 (3) It f oll ow s th at the IRD i s a q ua lif ied dis ab ili ty b en ef

it and is not a re tir em ent19 type subsidy underthe Plan. 20 (4) A r ed uc tio n o f t

he IRD the ref

ore do es n ot r ed

uc e an acc rue d b en ef

it. 21 Because the impermissibilit y of decreasing an ac crued benefit i s the only st ated except ion to the 22 Trustees’ power to amend the Plan in the manner here done, a nd because a re duction in t he IRD 23 is n ot a

red uc tio n o f an a ccr

ue d b en ef it, the un am

biguo us ef

fe ct o f t he Pl an ’s and

SP Ds ’ 24 language is t hat the IRD benefit coul d be so amended.-9- 1 Appellants di rect our a ttenti on to language i n a number of Plan docum ents descr ibing the 2 IRD a s a “ lif

eti m e” p en sio n o r a p en sio n to be pa id “ fo r li fe .” W e ad dre sse d a ve ry s im ilar 3 situati on in Ab brus ca to v . E mp ireBlueCros s & B lueSh iel d , 2 74 F. 3d

90 , 9 9 (2 d C ir. 20 01 ), 4 where we said, 5 He re, . . . w e h av e S PD lan gu ag e th at bo th appears to pr omise lifetime life 6 ins uranc e co ve rag e at a p art icu lar

lev el and cle arl y re ser

ve s [ the ins ure r’s ] r ight to 7 am en d o r te rm inate s uc h c ov era ge . B eca us e th e sam e d oc um ent th at p ote nti all y 8 pro vid ed

the “li fe tim e” b en ef

its als o c learlyinf

orm ed em plo ye es t hat th ese 9 be ne fi ts w ere su bje ct t o m od if

icatio n, we co nc lud e th at the lan gu ag e co nta ine d in 10 [tha t d oc umen t] is no t s us ce pt ib le to anin te rp re ta ti onth atpr omi se s v es te d l if et ime 11

. . . b en ef

its

. 12 13 As the dis tri ct c ourt c orr ect ly n ote d, the “li fe tim e” l an gu ag e in Pl ando cum ents w as 14 “m ere ly a

fa ctu all y c orr ect

statem ent of

the be ne fi ts t

he n p rov ide d b y th e P lan

—b en ef its that 15 we re e xp res sly

su bje ct t o am en dm ent ‘at any ti m e. ’” Robinson , 4 41 F. Su pp . 2 d at 43 1; seeals o 16 Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 133 F.3d 388, 401 (6th Cir. 1998) ( “We see no am biguity in a 17 summ ary

plan d esc rip tio n th at t ell s p art ici pants bo th t hat th e te rm s o f t

he curre nt p lan

entit le 18 the m

to h eal th i ns uranc e at

no co st thro ug ho ut r eti rem ent an d th at the ter m s o f t he curre nt p lan 19 are su

bje ct t o c hang e. ”). Ind eed , th e “l if eti m e” l an gu ag e in

the Pl anis e xp res sly

m ad e “s ub

jec t 20 to t

he pro vis ion s o f t

his Pl an ,” wh ich , o f c ourse , in clu de the am en dm ent pr ov isi on s. No tab ly, in 21 the co nte xt o f t

he IRD, the “li fe tim e” l an gu ag e cannot be tak enlit era llyto m ean that, o nc e a 22 partici pant begins t o receive I RD benefits, he will neces sarily r emain entitled to t hem f or the 23 remainder of his life. For example, the IRD clear ly ends if the par ticipantceases to be disabled. 24 An d th e P lan

expli cit ly s tat es t

hat an IRD r eci pie nt m aybe req uir ed to u nd erg o p eri od ic m ed ica l 25 ex am inatio ns in o rde r to pro vid e “e vid en ce o f c ontin ue d e nti tle m ent to su chbe ne fi t.” Re ad in 26 context, the n, the “lifeti me” language does not give Appell ants a contr actual and absolute ri ght 27 to c ontin

ue rec eiv ingthe IRD f

or t he ir l ive s. 28W e d eci de on ly t he cas e b ef

ore us an d d eal jus t w iththe af ore m entio ne d am en dm ents t o 5 the IRD. W e h av e n o o cca sio n to co ns ide r, f or e xam ple , whe the r E RI SAwo uld pla ce res tri cti on s o n o the r ty

pe s o f am en dm ents o r w ou ld r eq uir e p art icu lar

lan gu ag e in

SP Ds wh en dealing with c hanges that c ould be draconi an, e.g., a total elimination of benefits to peopl e who, by joining the Plan, forewent other, gua ranteed, bene fits. All thatis beyond the sc ope of the present ca se, and we express no vi ew on it eithe r way. -10- 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Un de r Fe ife r and Ab brus ca to , Appellants had no ve sted contr actual r ight to cont inue 3 receivi ng the IRD. Moreover, t heir cla im that applying the ea rnings li mitation to theirIRDs 4 violates ERISA’s anti-cutback rule has been aptly di sposed of by the distr ict court . In light of 5 the fa ilure o f t

ho se t wo arg um ents, Ap pe llants ’ f idu ciary d

uty arg um ent m

us t f ail as w ell

. 5 6 Ac co rdi ng ly, the ap pe al i s D IS MIS SE D a s to Ap pe llant D on ohue an d th os e cl ass 7 m em

be rs o ve r th e ag e o f f

if ty- fi ve , and

the jud gm ent of

the dis tri ct c ourt i s A FF IRME D a s to 8 Ap pe llant R ob ins on an d a ll o the r cl ass m em

be rs.