Opinion ID: 2795463
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the committee's decision relied on an

Text: incomplete factual record Niebauer faults the committee for relying on an inaccurate and incomplete record in rendering its decision. He points to two categories of errors that, in his view, undermine the legitimacy of the committee's final decision: first, he argues that the committee inappropriately relied on the one-sided timeline of events prepared by Hackett, the general counsel. He goes on to contend that Hackett withheld certain documents from the committee that supported Niebauer's position, such as various emails and personnel files. -20- We do not agree that there was anything improper in the content or scope of the materials that the committee considered. As an initial matter, it was entirely appropriate for the committee to rely on materials submitted by Crane; indeed, the plan contemplates that the committee will do just that, by making eligibility determinations on the basis of information supplied to it by the Employer. And while a plan administrator may not rely on evidence that it knows or has reason to know is misleading, Buffonge v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 426 F.3d 20, 30 (1st Cir. 2005), that is not what happened here. The timeline, far from being undisputedly false, as Niebauer asserts, was a reasonable synthesis of a convoluted series of events, which hewed to the available evidence. For example, although Niebauer claims that the timeline falsely represented that he agreed to a February 1, 2012 retirement date, that representation is a fair reading of a December 8, 2011 email to Rick Kendall on the topic of retirement calculations in which Niebauer wrote, [I] think February 1st will work. We also resist Niebauer's imputation of bad faith to Hackett in his management of the investigation. Niebauer argues that Hackett kept certain records from the committee because they supported Niebauer's position. In particular, Niebauer points to emails between him and Kendall about retirement calculations; emails between him and coworker Chris Duquette in which Niebauer -21- rebuffed congratulations on his retirement, stating that he had not actually retired; as well as a document in his personnel file which listed the reason for Niebauer's departure as Retired — Involuntary.12 Hackett testified at his deposition that, in assembling materials for the committee to review, he look[ed] for any e-mails that were relevant on the topic [of Niebauer's departure] in either direction, mindful of the committee's fiduciary duties to get all the facts and to look at this thing in good faith. Hackett stated that he turned over to the committee all emails, sent during the relevant time period, that he deemed relevant to Niebauer's claim. Niebauer does not offer any reason to discredit this testimony. Niebauer argues that, as a result of these supposed inaccuracies and omissions, the committee was under the mistaken impression that he had at least at one point decided to retire, before ultimately changing his mind. But deposition testimony makes clear that the committee members understood that Niebauer's position was that he had not announced an intent to retire during the initial December 5 call with Stephen DeFalco. In other words, 12 An affidavit from the Crane benefits specialist who prepared the form, Gail Rondeau, demonstrates that the designation Retired — Involuntary was not intended to be an official pronouncement on the reason for Niebauer's departure from the company. Rondeau averred that, in filling out the electronic form, she simply used the reason that Niebauer had provided, and that she understood that the designation in the computer program was irrelevant for any purpose besides the Human Resources Department's administrative termination of Niebauer's enrollment in various benefits programs. -22- they understood that Hackett's timeline did not align with Niebauer's stance. Certainly, if they were not aware of Niebauer's position when the issue was considered at the first meeting, they were by the time they decided his appeal, which offered a pointby-point refutation of the timeline, Niebauer, 44 F. Supp. 3d at 158, and also provided copies of the allegedly withheld Kendall emails. It is this final decision that carries weight. Terry v. Bayer Corp., 145 F.3d 28, 35 (1st Cir. 1998). Although Niebauer now argues that the appeal was necessarily incomplete because it was prepared once he no longer had access to his Crane email account, he noted at the time that he had intentionally presented his version of events in exhaustive detail so as to give the committee full context for his arguments. He does not now explain how the handful of documents that were unavailable to him at the time he filed his appeal would have materially strengthened his presentation of his position to the committee. As the district court concluded, [t]he appeals process protected against potential bias on the part of Hackett by allowing [Niebauer] to present his unfiltered perspective to the Compensation Committee. Niebauer, 44 F. Supp. 3d at 165. Thus, even if the factual record undergirding the committee's initial decision was incomplete in some way, it was adequately supplemented by Niebauer's appeal. -23-