Opinion ID: 2787077
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan

Text: amendment which has the effect of— (A) eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy (as defined in regulations), or (B) eliminating an optional form of benefit, with respect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment shall be treated as reducing accrued benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1054. 19 pension recipients.” Battoni v. IBEW Local Union No. 102 Employee Pension Plan, 594 F.3d 230, 234 (3d Cir. 2010). “An erroneous interpretation of a plan provision that results in the improper denial of benefits to a plan participant may be construed as an ‘amendment’ for the purposes of” § 1054(g). Hein v. F.D.I.C., 88 F.3d 210, 216 (3d Cir. 1996).2 The critical question in this case, in light of the absence of a formal plan amendment, is whether Loughlin’s “interpretation of the Plan improperly denied accrued benefits to” the Employees. Id. at 216–17. The answer is yes. In 1988, United’s understanding of the Plans accorded with the plain reading of the Plans that we have discussed above. By 2005, United had reinterpreted the Plans and decided that they required actuarial adjustments to the amounts paid to TVPs who took early retirement. This incorrect interpretation resulted in the improper denial of TVPs’ accrued early retirement benefits and thus violated ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. 2 Some Circuits have taken a narrower view of the meaning of “amendment” than Hein—see Richardson v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 112 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 1997); Dooley v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 797 F.2d 1447, 1451–53 (7th Cir. 1986)—but, as the Second Circuit has noted, a Treasury Regulation interpreting the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that implements 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g) supports our Court’s view and is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Inc., 707 F.3d 173, 183 (2d Cir. 2013) (discussing Limitations on Availability of Benefits, 53 Fed. Reg. 26,050-01, 26,064 (July 11, 1988) (codified at 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(d)–4)). 20