Case Name: Wendell W. REINKING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO.; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension for Operating Company Employees, initially effective July 1, 1976; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Separation Benefits Plan No. 516; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension Plan Retirement and Trust Committee; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Human Resources Department as Plan Administrator for Alyeska Separation Benefits Plan No. 516, Defendants-Appellants. Wendell W. Reinking, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension for Operating Company Employees, initially effective July 1, 1976; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Separation Benefits Plan No. 516; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension Plan Retirement and Trust Committee; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Human Resources Department as Plan Administrator for Alyeska Separation Benefits Plan No. 516, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-29
Citations: 539 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: Nos. 11-35363, 11-35397
Parties: Wendell W. REINKING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO.; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension for Operating Company Employees, initially effective July 1, 1976; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Separation Benefits Plan No. 516; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension Plan Retirement and Trust Committee; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Human Resources Department as Plan Administrator for Alyeska Separation Benefits Plan No. 516, Defendants-Appellants. Wendell W. Reinking, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension for Operating Company Employees, initially effective July 1, 1976; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Separation Benefits Plan No. 516; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension Plan Retirement and Trust Committee; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Human Resources Department as Plan Administrator for Alyeska Separation Benefits Plan No. 516, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 780–782

Head Matter:
Wendell W. REINKING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO.; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension for Operating Company Employees, initially effective July 1, 1976; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Separation Benefits Plan No. 516; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension Plan Retirement and Trust Committee; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Human Resources Department as Plan Administrator for Alyeska Separation Benefits Plan No. 516, Defendants-Appellants. Wendell W. Reinking, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension for Operating Company Employees, initially effective July 1, 1976; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Separation Benefits Plan No. 516; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Pension Plan Retirement and Trust Committee; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Human Resources Department as Plan Administrator for Alyeska Separation Benefits Plan No. 516, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 11-35363, 11-35397.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 29, 2013.
George Thorstein Freeman, Esquire, Law Office of George T. Freeman, Timothy Seaver, Seaver & Wagner, LLC, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathleen M. O’Sullivan, Esquire, William B. Stafford, Perkins COIE LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1.The structural conflict of interest present in this case is entitled to little weight because there's no evidence of malice, self-dealing, a suspect claims-granting history, inadequate investigation of a claim or failure to credit a claimant's reliable evidence. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 968-69 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc).
2. The Pension Plan administrator didn't abuse its discretion in denying Reinking's application for benefits. See Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506, 130 S.Ct. 1640, 1646, 176 L.Ed.2d 469 (2010); Gatti v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 415 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir.2005). The Pension Plan's definition of "Employee" as "any person engaged in rendering personal services to the Employer for earnings considered wages under Section 3121(a) of the [Internal Revenue] Code" can reasonably be read to refer only to those employees on Alyeska's payroll. The plan administrator's decision to adopt such an interpretation doesn't violate ERISA's anti-cutback provision, see 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g), as the later amendments to the plan can reasonably be read as clarifications of the earlier language.
3. The Separation Plan administrator also didn't abuse its discretion in denying Reinking benefits. The plan explicitly distinguishes "regular" employees from "non-Alyeska contract personnel." Because Reinking was formally employed by a series of third-party staffing firms, not Alyes-ka, a plan administrator could reasonably conclude that he falls into the latter category.
The district court shall enter summary judgment for defendants.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.