Opinion ID: 793591
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpretation of Guaranteed Minimum Compensation in the Compensation Agreement

Text: 30 The application of the non-CFA Associate formula to Gibbs does not necessarily mean that the $150,000 [g]uaranteed minimum compensation was a salary. An ERISA-regulated plan is construed in accordance with federal common law. Critchlow v. First UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 378 F.3d 246, 255-56 (2d Cir. 2004). [U]nambiguous language in an ERISA plan must be interpreted and enforced in accordance with its plain meaning. Language is ambiguous when it is capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated agreement. Aramony v. United Way Replacement Benefit Plan, 191 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting O'Neil v. Ret. Plan for Salaried Employees of RKO General, Inc., 37 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1994)) (internal citations omitted). 31 The meaning of the term salary in the non-CFA Associate formula is straightforward. A salary is a fixed compensation paid regularly . . . for services. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2003 (1961). But the term [g]uaranteed minimum compensation in the Compensation Agreement could indicate either a salary or a guaranteed draw against commissions earned. Therefore, whether Gibbs and CIGNA intended that he would receive a salary should be left to the trier of fact to determine from extrinsic evidence. See Devlin, 274 F.3d at 90 (vacating and remanding district court's grant of summary judgment to allow the presentation of extrinsic evidence to clarify the ambiguous terms of an ERISA welfare plan). As we find there is sufficient evidence supporting each side's interpretation of [g]uaranteed minimum compensation to create a genuine issue of material fact, the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate.