Opinion ID: 201479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the benefits claim

Text: 23 We turn to the substance of the claim in Count I: the Plan entitles the former employees to receive full retirement benefits once they reach age 56 or, if they elect to retire between ages 50 and 56, benefits with a reduction calculated only from age 56. John Hancock rejects this interpretation and asserts that the Plan instead entitles each former employee to full pension benefits beginning at age 65 or reduced benefits calculated from the same age. 24 The 1995 Restatement, like its 1976 predecessor, is organized by Articles. Article III, Retirement Dates, addresses the timing of retirement from the earliest dates on which a participant may elect to retire to the mandatory retirement age. Article IV, Amount of Pension, enumerates the amount of pension a participant is entitled to receive. Article VIII, Benefits on Termination of Service, Death or Return to Employment, 4 describes benefits available to participants whose employment is terminated other than by retirement. 25 Because the former employees left John Hancock before they reached the age of 50, their service to the company was terminated other than by retirement. Their entitlement to benefits, therefore, is determined first by section 8.1 of the Plan: 26 If the Service of a Participant who has completed at least five (5) Years of Service is terminated, other than by retirement, such Participant will, subject to Article V, be entitled to receive 27 (A) a yearly amount of Pension determined in accordance with Section 4.1 commencing on the first day of the month in which he attains age sixty-five (65), or 28 (B) the Pension described in (A) above subject to a reduction as described in Section 4.3, commencing on the first day of any month on or after the month in which he meets any of the requirements for Early Retirement described in Section 3.2. 29 Thus, the former employees were not entitled to receive full pensions until they reached the age of 65. The amount of such full pension would be determined by looking to Section 4.1 (contained in Article IV, Amount of Pension), which lists formulas that involve years of service and final average salary. If the former employees were to choose early retirement, the amount would be determined by Section 4.3, which contains the 0.4% per month reduction, and the eligibility would be determined by Section 3.2 (contained in Article III, Retirement Dates), which allows early retirement at age 50 with 15 years of service. 30 Although the former employees rely on the 1994 amendment to the Plan, that amendment affected only Sections 3.2, 4.2, and 4.3. 5 It made no changes to Article VIII. Section 8.1 continued to direct that participants whose employment terminated other than by retirement were not eligible for full benefits before age 65. The amendment did lower the age at which the former employees could elect early reduced retirement benefits from 55 to 50, as it amended Section 3.2 which is referred to in Section 8.1. It did not change the age at which they could retire with full benefits. 31 John Hancock's response to the former employees' request for liberalized pension benefits was consistent with this interpretation, and it should not be disturbed. 32 When plaintiffs do make an argument based solely on the text of the Plan, they fail to offer a coherent or persuasive interpretation. From their scattershot offering, we extract one main contention — that the sole criterion for determining whether a participant is entitled to a full pension at age 56 (or a reduced pension calculated from age 56) is whether she has achieved 25 years of service. So, for example, plaintiffs say that Section 8.1 applies only to participants with less than 25 years of service. On its own terms, however, Section 8.1 applies simply to a participant who has completed at least five years of Service and whose service is terminated, other than by retirement; the text says nothing about any upper limit on service, nor can such a limit be read into the test by harmonizing it with other sections, as plaintiffs urge. Still, plaintiffs try to argue that full pensions at age 56 must be available to any participant who has at least 25 years of service, regardless of how that service was terminated. Again, this argument avoids Section 8.1's bite only by ignoring its plain language; moreover, if there were any doubt, the section that plaintiffs invoke for this proposition (Section 4.2) states explicitly that it is subject to any applicable Section of ... Article ... VIII. Plaintiffs' attempts at harmonizing the various sections cannot escape this conclusion. We reverse the district court order of summary judgment and remand for entry of summary judgment on Count I in favor of John Hancock.