Court Opinion

ID: 9521154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:59:00.114361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:22.968757
License: Public Domain

BERZON, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I respectfully dissent as to the pension plan benefits but concur with regard to the separation benefits.
*782For the reasons explained by the district court, the plan administrator’s interpretation of the phrase “any person engaged in rendering personal services to the Employer for earnings considered wages under Section 3121(a) of the [Internal Revenue] Code” was an abuse of discretion. In addition, the plan’s separate reference to leased employees would be superfluous were Alyeska’s interpretation of the 1989 definition of “Employee” correct. See, e.g., Brown v. S. Cal. IBEW-NECA Trust Funds, 588 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.2009) (“[E]ach provision in an agreement should be construed consistently with the entire document such that no provision is rendered nugatory.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). I would therefore affirm the district court as to the pension benefits.