Opinion ID: 626080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Blessitt v. Retirement Plan for Employees of Dixie Engine Co.

Text: Although not an anti-cutback rule case, our decision in Blessitt v. Retirement Plan for Employees of Dixie Engine Co., 848 F.2d 1164 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc), is informative because it discusses accrued benefits and how they differ from anticipated benefits based on future years of service. Like Heinz and Gilley, however, the case does not help Cinotto. The plaintiffs in Blessitt were enrolled in the defendant's pension plan but had not reached normal retirement age and were not yet retirement-eligible when the plan terminated. Id. at 1165. Accordingly, the defendant calculated the plaintiffs' pension benefits under the plan's termination formula, rather than the more favorable retirement formula. Id. Reaching normal retirement age (65) was a prerequisite for qualifying for [the retirement] benefits. Id. at 1169. The plaintiffs brought suit, claiming that their pension benefits should have been calculated under the retirement formula and that the defendant's calculation violated ERISA's termination scheme, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1344. Id. at 1166, 1168. In Blessitt, this Court concluded that a pension plan participant is not entitled to a benefit calculated on the basis of anticipated future years of service which have not actually been worked as of the termination date. Id. at 1165. In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims, this Court noted that ERISA's essential purpose is to ensure that employees received their accrued benefits, but not to give them something for nothing. Id. at 1176. Due to the plan's termination, the plaintiffs would never be able to work the necessary years to vest in retirement benefits and were therefore eligible only for termination benefits. Id. at 1174-76. This Court cited multiple cases concluding that benefit accruals cease when the plan terminates. Id. at 1173. Indeed, [n]o case has ever held that, when a defined benefit plan terminates, an employer is required to pay an employee retirement benefits based on future years of service not yet worked. Id. at 1172; see also Aldridge v. Lily-Tulip, Inc. Salary Retirement Plan Benefits Comm., 40 F.3d 1202, 1211 (11th Cir.1994) (holding that the anti-cutback rule applied to both amendments to the plan and termination of the plan, but also stating that [a]lthough the amendments may have reduced accrued benefits with respect to pre-amendment service, the termination of the Plan only eliminated future benefit accrual, and concluding termination did not violate the anti-cutback rule). Before discussing Cinotto's arguments, we also review how pension plans may lawfully integrate pensions with Social Security benefits.