Opinion ID: 1427141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adjusted Service Date

Text: The District Court enjoined DuPont to calculate Pell's pension benefits using the date of August 1, 1972. There are two potential dates that could be used: Pell's first day of employment at Consol (February 10, 1971) or the date on which he became eligible to participate in Consol's pension plan (August 1, 1972). Pell argues that the District Court erred when it determined that the correct date is August 1, 1972. We agree. The 1991 email from DuPont pre-retirement counselor Doris Uhde, combined with the pension benefit estimates Pell received during the 1990s, constitute a material misrepresentation about Pell's adjusted service date. The District Court chose August 1, 1972 on the basis of the Waddell Letter. Directly below the salutation Dear Mr. Pell, the letter provided the following information: RE: SALARY BENEFIT PLANS Social Security Number: [omitted] Date of Birth: 07-11-42 Employment Date: 02-10-71 Retirement Plan Credited Service Date: 08-01-72 In the second paragraph, under the heading Retirement Plan, the letter stated: The Pension you receive will be calculated under the DuPont Plan based on your total combined service. This retirement benefit will be offset by any payment you receive from the Consol Plan as a result of your accrued benefit as of the date of transfer. The District Court concluded that Pell should have known that the correct date was his eligibility date for participation in the Consol plan, and not his initial Consol employment date. Pell, 2006 WL 2864604 at  n. 13. This conclusion does not take into account DuPont's misrepresentations over an extended course of dealing. Kurz II, 96 F.3d at 1553. Neither the Waddell letter nor the emails from DuPont's benefits administrators explained unambiguously how Pell's pension would be calculated. But DuPont communicated repeatedly to Pell, in the Uhde email and the 1990s pension estimates, that his adjusted service date was February 10, 1971. In the analysis above, we explained that Pell has made out a claim for equitable estoppel because the Uhde email and the subsequent pension estimates were material misrepresentations, Pell reasonably and detrimentally relied on the misrepresentations, and there were extraordinary circumstances. For these same reasons, DuPont is liable to Pell for benefit payments that reflect a pension calculation date of February 10, 1971.