Opinion ID: 49577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether FedEx’s Decision Was “Wrong”

Text: Construing the evidence in Merritt’s favor, the date Merritt received the Agreement presents an issue of fact. Whether this issue of fact is material and requires reversal of the entry of summary judgment depends on the remainder of the ERISA analysis. Accordingly, construing the evidence in favor of Merritt, we will assume that he received the Agreement in November 2003 and proceed to determine whether FedEx’s decision was “wrong.”3 The Agreement provided that Merritt had forty-five days after receipt to consider and accept the severance package. Assuming Merritt did not receive the Agreement until November 1, 2003, he executed the Agreement on December 3, 2003, less than forty-five days after receiving it. Therefore, under the terms of the Agreement, Merritt’s execution was timely. However, under the terms of the Plan, SPD, and email, Merritt’s execution of the Agreement on December 3 was not timely. 3 We recognize that FedEx has presented strong evidence that Merritt received the Plan packet on September 8, 2003, which contained (1) the Plan stating that termination had to occur by November 30, (2) the Agreement to accept voluntary severance, and (3) the SPD stating that the Agreement had to be returned by November 24. There is also evidence that Merritt received the September 2003 email containing the same deadlines. However, given Merritt’s affidavit that he received the Plan packet in November 2003 and given the current summary judgment posture, we must view the evidence and factual inferences in favor of Merritt, the non-moving party. See Shaw v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003). 8 Thus, if Merritt did not receive the packet until November 1, 2003, two interpretations of the deadline for returning the Agreement were possible: (1) November 24, 2003 or, at the latest, November 30, 2003, the date by which termination had to occur as described in the Plan, SPD, and email; or (2) forty-five days after Merritt’s receipt of the Agreement in November 2003, as described in the Agreement. When an ERISA summary plan description conflicts with the plan itself, the summary plan description controls provided the employee has relied upon it. See Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 443 F.3d 1330, 1340 (11th Cir. 2006); McKnight v. S. Life & Health Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1985). Here, the Agreement was clearly a critical part of the Plan because it was the document that the employee was to sign to become a participant in the Plan and, by the language in the SPD, was effectively part of the SPD. Therefore, the principle in Heffner and McKnight applies here. In light of the conflicting deadlines and Merritt’s reliance on the forty-five day deadline in the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement control. Therefore, if Merritt did not receive the Plan packet until November 2003, we conclude that FedEx’s decision to construe the deadline as November 24 (or, at the latest, November 30 as set out in the Plan) was wrong. On the other hand, if Merritt received the packet on September 8, 2003, as 9 FedEx claims, then there is no conflict between the Agreement and the other Plan documents, and FedEx’s decision was not wrong. Upon receipt of the Plan documents on September 8, the forty-five days in the Agreement would have expired before the November 24 deadline for returning the Agreement or the November 30 deadline for termination of employment, and Merritt’s execution of the Agreement on December 3 was untimely. Accordingly, we conclude that when Merritt received the Plan packet is a material issue of fact that controls whether FedEx’s decision was wrong or not. However, because we must view the evidence in Merritt’s favor, FedEx’s decision was wrong, and we must proceed to the next step of determining whether FedEx has discretion to interpret the Plan.