Alcantara v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund Pension Plan In the 1

12‐4834‐cv (L)
Alcantara v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund Pension Plan
In the 1
United States Court of Appeals 2
For the Second Circuit 3
________ 4
August Term 2013 5
Nos. 12‐4834‐cv, 12‐4839‐cv, 12‐4851‐cv, 12‐4861‐cv, 12‐4912‐cv 6
RAFAEL ALCANTARA , I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS 7
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALONSO G OMEZ , I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF 8
O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CELESTINO J UAREZ , 9
I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 10
V ASILICHIA B ABU , I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS 11
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGEL DE L A CRUZ , I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N 12
B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, K HIM CHAND, 13
I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 14
TESFAYE G HEBREMEDHIN, I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL 15
O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RATHIN DUTTA G UPTA , I NDIVIDUALLY , 16
AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, L UIS MEJIA , 17
I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 18
ANTONIO MEROLLA , I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS 19
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROLANDO MONTANO, I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N 20
B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RUSSELL N EUBERT, 21
I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 22
TAGLIARENI SALVATORE, I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL 23
O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MUSOVIC SMAIL, I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N 24
B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, J UAN F. TORRES, 25
I NDIVIDUALLY , AND O N B EHALF O F ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 26

-- 1 of 14 --

2 No. 12‐4834‐cv
K ENNETH K ERN , MELVIN MENARD, G ARRETT SCHOL , G UY STALTER, 1
ALMOND REID, MICHAEL DʹANTONIO, PHILLIP ROGERS, DONALD 2
SCROGHAM , B RIAN K. FOWLER , SR ., J OSEPH ALTAMORE, I NDIVIDUALLY , 3
AND ON B EHALF OF ALL O THERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, L ESLIE DURHAM , 4
RANDALL FARMER , RODNEY SIMPSON , J AMES THOMAS, J AMES SMITH , 5
STEVEN SHANKLES, MATTIE DAVIS, J OYCE SLATON , RICKEY MEDLEY , 6
K ATHY B ENEFIELD, TIMOTHY WRIGHT, M.D., RODNEY FOSTER , SANDRA 7
B RANDON , E DDIE WRIGHT, TOMMY W OMACK , ROGER WOOTEN , RICKEY 8
WILBORN, G ARY WHITMORE, W ALTER W ATSON , DANNY WHITE , TERRY 9
WAGNER , DANIEL THURMAN, RICKY TEAT, B EECHER TANNER , J R ., 10
MICHAEL SLATON , TOMMY SIBERT, DONNA SMITH , CHRIS SMITH , G ARY 11
SARRATT, CHARLES ROGERS, W ILLIAM RICHEY , G UY RICE, PHYLLIS 12
CRAZE, G ARY MEDLEY , RANDALL MOORE, MARK MONEY , MICHAEL 13
N ORRIS, TONY N ELSON , DONALD J ONES, DAVID L AWMAN, TONEY I VEY , 14
ROBERT J ONES, L ARRY I NGLE, B ILLY H OLKEM , H ERBERT H EAD, PAMULA 15
H ARPER , RODNEY B ROTHERS, DENNIS B RANDON , CONNIE B URGESS, 16
RUTH B AILEY , J IMMY AMMONS, K ENNETH B EARDEN , N ICKEY G ORHAM , 17
RALPH FLYNN , J AMES FERGUSON , WALTER E SLOON , G LENDA DUPREE, 18
ROGER DAVIS, ALAN DALTON , J AMES CRAWFORD, DOUGLAS COMBS, 19
MELISSA CISCO, B ILLY COOK , CHARLES COKER , B ILLY CATHEY , 20
K ENNETH B URT, DANIEL CARTER , E DWARD B EARDEN , SHEILA 21
H AMMOND, SALVADOR MARTINEZ , RANDALL G ARRISON , L ESLIE 22
CADDICK , J OSEPH B ARELA , SHEILA J UAREZ , ROGER G ONZALEZ , PHILLIP 23
G. SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF A 24
CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, TERRY W AYNE FINCH, TERRY 25
MOORE, RONALD B LACKWELL, 26
Plaintiffs‐Appellees, 27
J OHN STEVEN CHAMBERS, K EVIN W ATERS, 28
Plaintiffs, 29
v. 30

-- 2 of 14 --

3 No. 12‐4834‐cv
B AKERY AND CONFECTIONERY UNION AND I NDUSTRY I NTERNATIONAL 1
PENSION FUND PENSION PLAN , B AKERY AND CONFECTIONERY UNION 2
AND I NDUSTRY I NTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND B OARD OF TRUSTEES, AS 3
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR , J OHN DOES 3‐10, AS TRUSTEES OF THE B AKERY 4
AND CONFECTIONERY UNION AND I NDUSTRY I NTERNATIONAL PENSION 5
FUND, FRANK H URT, STEVEN V. B ERTELLI, DAVID B. DURKEE, ANTHONY 6
J OHNSON , ART MONTMINY , ROBERT O AKLEY , RANDY D. ROARK , J OSEPH 7
THIBODEAU, RICHARD B. COOK , DAN CRAIG, THOMAS G. K IRCHNER , 8
J ON MC PHERSON , L OU MINELLA , J OHN WAGNER , J OHN DOE N O. 1, 9
J OHN DOE N O. 2, AS TRUSTEES OF THE B AKERY AND CONFECTIONERY 10
UNION AND I NDUSTRY I NTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND, THE B AKERY 11
AND CONFECTIONERY UNION AND I NDUSTRY I NTERNATIONAL PENSION 12
FUND, J OHN B ECK , PLAN MANAGER , B AKERY AND CONFECTIONERY 13
UNION AND I NDUSTRY I NTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND B OARD OF 14
TRUSTEES, B AKERY AND CONFECTIONERY UNION AND I NDUSTRY 15
I NTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND, 16
Defendants‐Appellants. 1
17
________ 18
Appeal from the United States District Court 19
for the Southern District of New York. 20
Nos. 11 Civ. 1471, 11 Civ. 9203, 12 Civ. 141, 21
12 Civ. 142, 12 Civ. 913 ― Vincent L. Briccetti, Judge. 22
________ 23
ARGUED: N OVEMBER 20, 2013 24
DECIDED: MAY 1, 2014 25
________ 26
1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing
above.

-- 3 of 14 --

4 No. 12‐4834‐cv
Before: K EARSE, J ACOBS, and B.D. PARKER , Circuit Judges. 1
________ 2
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for 3
the Southern District of New York (Briccetti, J.). The district court 4
held that the anti‐cutback rule in § 204(g) of the Employee 5
Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g), 6
precludes plan amendments that reduce retirement‐type subsidies 7
for Plaintiffs‐Appellees who ceased employment without satisfying 8
the preamendment conditions for the subsidy, but who could later 9
satisfy the conditions without returning to work. We AFFIRM the 10
judgment of the district court. 11
________ 12
J ULIA PENNY CLARK (Jeremiah A. Collins, Osvaldo 13
Vazquez, on the brief), Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC, 14
Washington, DC, for Bakery and Confectionery 15
Union and Industry International Pension Fund 16
Pension Plan, Bakery and Confectionery Union and 17
Industry International Pension Fund Board of 18
Trustees, as Plan Administrator, John Does 3‐10, as 19
Trustees of the Bakery and Confectionery Union and 20
Industry International Pension Fund, Frank Hurt, 21
Steven V. Bertelli, David B. Durkee, Anthony Johnson, 22
Art Montminy, Robert Oakley, Randy D. Roark, 23
Joseph Thibodeau, Richard B. Cook, Dan Craig, 24
Thomas G. Kirchner, Jon McPherson, Lou Minella, 25
John Wagner, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, as 26
Trustees of the Bakery and Confectionery Union and 27
Industry International Pension Fund, The Bakery and 28
Confectionery Union and Industry International 29
Pension Fund, John Beck, Plant Manager, Bakery and 30
Confectionery Union and Industry International 31

-- 4 of 14 --

5 No. 12‐4834‐cv
Pension Fund Board of Trustees, Bakery and 1
Confectionery Union and Industry International 2
Pension Fund. 3
B ENJAMIN G OULD (Lynn L. Sarko, Derek W. 4
Loeser, David S. Preminger, Erin M. Riley, Alison 5
S. Gaffney, on the brief), Keller Rohrback LLP, 6
Seattle, WA, Chrisopher A. Seeger, Diogenes P. 7
Kekatos, Seeger Weiss LLP, New York, NY, 8
William D. Frumkin, Elizabeth E. Hunter, 9
Frumkin & Hunter LLP, White Plains, NY for 10
Alcantara Plaintiffs. 11
Thomas O. Sinclair (M. Clayborn Williams, on the 12
brief), Sinclair Williams LLC, Birmingham, AL, for 13
Phillip G. Scott and Terry Wayne Finch. 14
DAVID P. MARTIN , The Martin Law Group, LLC, 15
Tuscaloosa, AL, Robert Brett Adair, Adair Law 16
Firm, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Blackwell, 17
Martinez, and Moore Plaintiffs. 18
________ 19
B ARRINGTON D. PARKER , Circuit Judge: 20
In this appeal from a judgment of the United States District 21
Court for the Southern District of New York (Vincent L. Briccetti, 22
Judge) we consider whether the anti‐cutback rule in § 204(g) of the 23
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 24
U.S.C. § 1054(g), precludes plan amendments that reduce retirement‐ 25
type subsidies for plan participants who have ceased employment 26
without satisfying the preamendment conditions for the subsidy, but 27
who could later satisfy the preamendment conditions without 28

-- 5 of 14 --

6 No. 12‐4834‐cv
returning to work. We hold that the rule protects such benefits and, 1
accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 2
I. BACKGROUND 3
The relevant facts are uncontested. Defendants‐Appellants 4
are the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International 5
Pension Fund Pension Plan (the “Plan”), a multiemployer defined‐ 6
benefit pension plan, and its Board of Trustees. The Plaintiffs‐ 7
Appellees are participants in the Plan. The plaintiffs’ former 8
employers are parties to collective bargaining agreements with local 9
unions of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain 10
Millers International Union. 11
The Plan provides for a range of benefits. The standard 12
benefit, payable at age 65 — the “normal retirement age” under the 13
Plan — was labeled Plan A. Participants could elect to receive their 14
Plan A pension benefits as early as age 55, but at an actuarially 15
reduced level that reflected the earlier (and longer) expected stream 16
of payments. Certain employers elected to offer additional 17
subsidized early retirement benefits that were not actuarially 18
reduced. Two of these plans, Plan G (the “Golden 80 Plan”), and 19
Plan C (the “Golden 90 Plan”), are at issue here. Under those Plans, 20
a participant who had completed at least ten years of service with a 21
participating employer, and whose combination of his age and years 22
of service totaled 80 or 90 years, respectively, could retire and 23
receive full pension benefits. 24
Prior to July 2010, the Plan allowed a participant to “age into” 25
Golden 80 or 90 benefits. This meant that a participant who had 26

-- 6 of 14 --

7 No. 12‐4834‐cv
achieved the ten‐year minimum service requirement, but who had 1
left covered employment before achieving the requisite 80‐ or 90‐ 2
year age‐plus‐years‐of‐service level, would still become eligible for 3
Golden 80 or 90 benefits as soon as his age‐plus‐years‐of‐service 4
reached the required 80‐ or 90‐year requirement. 5
In July 2010, the Trustees amended the Plan to eliminate the 6
option to “age into” benefits and to require that a participant be 7
employed at the time he qualified for Golden 80 or 90 benefits. The 8
amendment did not affect those participants who had already aged 9
into Golden 80 or 90 benefits. The amendment affected only those 10
participants who had completed the ten‐year minimum service 11
requirement, but who had not yet reached the requisite age‐plus‐ 12
years‐of‐service level and were no longer working for an employer 13
participating in the Golden 80 or 90 Plans. The brunt of this change, 14
according to plaintiffs, fell on former employees who were laid off 15
due to either plant closings or reductions in force and subsequently 16
were unable to find work in the industry. 17
Participants who lost their opportunity to qualify for Golden 18
80 or 90 benefits as a result of the amendment filed various suits 19
alleging that the plan amendment violated § 204(g), ERISA’s anti‐ 20
cutback rule, which prohibits plan amendments that reduce or 21
eliminate certain pension benefits. In response, the Plan contended 22
that the rule protected only those Golden 80 and 90 Plan participants 23
who remained in covered employment at the time they achieved the 24
required age‐plus‐years‐of‐service level. 25

-- 7 of 14 --

8 No. 12‐4834‐cv
The cases were consolidated and the parties cross‐moved for 1
judgment on the pleadings. The district court held that the 2
amendment violated the anti‐cutback rule. In re Bakery & 3
Confectionery Union & Indus. Intʹl Pension Fund Pension Plan, 865 F. 4
Supp. 2d 469, 474‐75 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Judge Briccetti reasoned that 5
“[e]ligibility for plaintiffs is based on a sum of their respective ages 6
and lengths of service. Because they can continue to age into 7
pension benefits even after they have separated from their respective 8
employers, Section 204(g) applies. And because plaintiffs may, post‐ 9
amendment, satisfy the pre‐amendment requirements to obtaining a 10
Plan C or Plan G pension, the anticutback rule bars the amendment.” 11
Id. at 474. The district court entered judgment, the defendants 12
appealed, and the appeals were consolidated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13
54(b). We affirm. 14
II. DISCUSSION 15
We review de novo a judgment entered on the pleadings 16
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Kirkendall v. 17
Halliburton, Inc., 707 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2013). “In deciding a Rule 18
12(c) motion, we apply the same standard as that applicable to a 19
motion under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations contained in 20
the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor 21
of the nonmoving party.” Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161, 163 (2d 22
Cir. 2004). 23

-- 8 of 14 --

9 No. 12‐4834‐cv
The anti‐cutback rule, ERISA § 204(g), provides as follows: 1
(g) Decrease of accrued benefits through amendment of 2
plan 3
(1) The accrued benefit of a participant under a 4
plan may not be decreased by an amendment of 5
the plan [except in certain circumstances not 6
applicable here]. 7
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan 8
amendment which has the effect of‐‐ 9
(A) eliminating or reducing an early 10
retirement benefit or a retirement‐type 11
subsidy (as defined in regulations), or 12
(B) eliminating an optional form of benefit, 13
with respect to benefits attributable to service 14
before the amendment shall be treated as 15
reducing accrued benefits. In the case of a 16
retirement‐type subsidy, the preceding sentence 17
shall apply only with respect to a participant who 18
satisfies (either before or after the amendment) 19
the preamendment conditions for the subsidy. 20
29 U.S.C. § 1054(g). 21
The issues presented on appeal are whether the Golden 80 and 22
90 Plans are considered “accrued benefits” under § 204(g)(1) or 23
“retirement‐type subsid[ies]” under § 204(g)(2) for the purposes of 24
the anti‐cutback rule, and, if the latter, whether plaintiffs, as former 25
employees, can “satisf[y] (either before or after the amendment) the 26
preamendment conditions for the subsidy.” 27

-- 9 of 14 --

10 No. 12‐4834‐cv
In our view, it is clear that the Golden 80 and 90 Plans are 1
“retirement‐type subsid[ies]” that qualify for protection under 2
§ 204(g)(2). The term “retirement‐type subsidy” is defined in IRS 3
regulations interpreting a parallel provision of the Internal Revenue 4
Code.2 A retirement‐type subsidy is: 5
the excess, if any, of the actuarial present value of a 6
retirement‐type benefit over the actuarial present value 7
of the accrued benefit commencing at normal retirement 8
age or at actual commencement date, if later, with both 9
such actuarial present values determined as of the date 10
the retirement‐type benefit commences. Examples of 11
retirement‐type subsidies include a subsidized early 12
retirement benefit . . . . 13
26 C.F.R. § 1.411(d)–3(g)(6)(iv). 14
The Golden 80 and 90 Plans fall within this definition. The 15
Plans provide a “retirement‐type benefit” because they provide a 16
“benefit under a defined benefit plan . . . that . . . continues after 17
retirement, and is not an ancillary benefit.” Id. § 1.411(d)–3(g)(6)(iii). 18
It is undisputed that the actuarial value of the Golden 80 and 90 19
Plans at the time they begin distributing benefits is in “excess” of 20
“the actuarial present value of the accrued benefit commencing at 21
normal retirement age.” Id. § 1.411(d)–3(g)(6)(iv). Accordingly, for 22
the purposes of the anti‐cutback rule, the Golden 80 and 90 Plans are 23
retirement‐type subsidies. 24
The evolution of § 204(g) reinforces this conclusion. Prior to 25
the passage of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (“REA”), Pub. L. 26
No. 98‐397, 98 Stat. 1426, the anti‐cutback rule was limited to the 27
2 Pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor, the IRS regulations are
applicable to the interpretation of sections 202 through 204 of ERISA. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 2530.200a‐2.

-- 10 of 14 --

11 No. 12‐4834‐cv
text now included in § 204(g)(1) and thus applied only to “accrued 1
benefits.” Whether early retirement benefits, retirement‐type 2
subsidies, and optional forms of benefits were protected was unclear 3
because the statute did not specifically address those types of 4
benefits. 5
Congress recognized that these benefits could be important 6
components of retirement packages and passed the REA in part to 7
limit the circumstances under which these benefits could be reduced 8
or eliminated through plan amendments. S. Rep. No. 98‐575, at 27 9
(1984). To do so, Congress added § 204(g)(2) which did not disturb 10
the existing protection for “accrued benefits,” but went on to 11
provide that reductions to early retirement benefits, retirement‐type 12
subsidies, and optional forms of benefits were to be “treated as” 13
reductions of “accrued benefits.” Accordingly, where a benefit 14
qualifies as a retirement‐type subsidy, it is subject to § 204(g)(2) of 15
the anti‐cutback rule. 16
Section 204(g)(2) contains an additional provision, the 17
meaning of which is the primary point of disagreement on this 18
appeal. Under that provision, the anti‐cutback rule applies to 19
retirement‐type subsidies, “only with respect to a participant who 20
satisfies (either before or after the amendment) the preamendment 21
conditions for the subsidy.” 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(2). The plaintiffs 22
would have us read the “only with respect to a participant . . .” 23
language as simply requiring that a participant “satisf[y] (either 24
before or after the amendment) the preamendment conditions for 25
the subsidy” to have their benefits protected by the rule. The 26
plaintiffs contend that they have satisfied (or will satisfy) this 27
requirement. The preamendment Plan, they argue, conditioned 28
Golden 80 or 90 benefits on the sum of plaintiffs’ years‐of‐ 29
employment plus age equaling 80 or 90, respectively. Because 30
plaintiffs either have seen, or if they continue to age will see, that 31

-- 11 of 14 --

12 No. 12‐4834‐cv
number equal 80 or 90 and because the Plan has no time limitation 1
within which a participant must reach that number, the 2
preamendment condition, they contend, is or will be satisfied. 3
The Plan agrees that Golden 80 and 90 Plans are retirement‐ 4
type subsidies, but insists that § 204(g)(2) contains an implicit 5
“continued employment” requirement, under which a participant, to 6
be protected by the anti‐cutback rule, must have remain in covered 7
employment until he becomes eligible for the subsidy. The Plan 8
insists that the “only with respect to a participant . . .” language is 9
intended to have a limiting effect on the application of the anti‐ 10
cutback rule to retirement‐type subsidies and that, read literally as 11
the plaintiffs urge, the sentence has none because a participant could 12
never be eligible for a subsidy without “satisf[ying] . . . the 13
preamendment conditions for the subsidy.” On the basis of this 14
reading, the Plan contends that the scope of the limitation is unclear 15
and can be understood only by resort to the legislative history, 16
which the Plan argues reveals that Congress intended to limit the 17
protection of the anti‐cutback rule to current employees. For several 18
reasons, we disagree with the Plan’s approach. 19
Legislative interpretation begins with the plain text of the 20
statute and, where the text is unambiguous, also ends there because 21
the “judicial inquiry is complete.” Hedges v. Obama, 724 F.3d 170, 189 22
(2d Cir. 2013). We read the provision as straightforwardly applying 23
to participants, such as the plaintiffs, who qualified for the subsidy 24
before the amendment or who could do so afterwards. The text says 25
nothing about satisfying the preamendment conditions “while 26
employed,” or before “separating from service,” or anything to that 27
effect. To the contrary, the statutory wording cuts against such a 28
requirement. Section 204(g)(2), which requires that a “participant” 29
satisfy the preamendment conditions of the subsidy in order to enjoy 30
the protections of the anti‐cutback rule, is elucidated by the 31

-- 12 of 14 --

13 No. 12‐4834‐cv
definition of a “participant” under ERISA as “any employee or 1
former employee of an employer, . . . who is or may become eligible to 2
receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan.” 29 3
U.S.C. § 1002(7) (emphasis added). Consequently, it is immaterial 4
that some plaintiffs had not yet satisfied the preamendment age‐ 5
level conditions when they left covered employment, because § 6
204(g)’s prohibition on cutbacks applies to former as well as to 7
current employees. 8
The Plan’s approach would require us to delve into the 9
complex legislative history of ERISA and the REA in search of 10
limiting principles that Congress did not include in the text. This 11
“would result not in a construction of the statute, but, in effect, an 12
enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted . . . may be 13
included within its scope.” Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 538 (2004) 14
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Accordingly, we 15
are not inclined to overlook the plaintiffs’ straightforward and 16
reasonable interpretation of the statute in favor of one that renders 17
the text ambiguous and resorts to legislative history or policy 18
arguments to give it meaning. See also Fedorenko v. United States, 449 19
U.S. 490, 513 (1981). 20
This conclusion is consistent with decisions from other circuits 21
recognizing that a participant may “grow into” eligibility for 22
retirement‐type subsidy benefits under the anti‐cutback rule by 23
satisfying the eligibility requirements after the date of the 24
amendment. See, e.g., Bellas v. CBS, Inc., 221 F.3d 517, 521 (3d Cir. 25
2000); Ahng v. Allsteel, Inc., 96 F.3d 1033, 1036‐37 (7th Cir. 1996); 26
Harms v. Cavenham Forest Indus., Inc., 984 F.2d 686, 692 (5th Cir. 27
1993); Gillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 4 F.3d 1137, 1146 (3d Cir. 1993); 28
Hunger v. AB, 12 F.3d 118, 121 (8th Cir. 1993). As the Seventh Circuit 29
explained in Ahng, “[t]he courts of appeals that have ruled on an 30
employee’s right to ‘grow into’ early retirement benefits have . . . 31

-- 13 of 14 --

14 No. 12‐4834‐cv
uniformly held that as long as an employee satisfies, or will be able to 1
satisfy, the eligibility requirements of the early retirement benefit in 2
effect prior to the amendment, § 204(g) protects the benefit.” 96 F.3d 3
at 1036 (emphasis added). 4
Other courts have denied a participant the ability to “grow 5
into” benefits only where he has ceased employment without 6
completing the minimum years of service necessary to become 7
eligible for the retirement‐type subsidy or failed to satisfy some 8
other preamendment condition that cannot be cured. In that 9
situation, courts have permitted the reduction or elimination of the 10
benefits because the participant, even without the amendment, 11
would never have been able to satisfy the preamendment conditions 12
of the subsidy. See Shaver v. Siemens Corp., 670 F.3d 462, 490‐91 (3d 13
Cir. 2012) (denying application of § 204(g)(2) because service with 14
successor employee “forever disqualifie[d the participants] from 15
receiving . . . benefits under th[e] plan” which was “a prohibition 16
that the passage of time cannot cure”); Hunger, 12 F.3d at 121; Berger 17
v. Edgewater Steel Co., 911 F.2d 911, 918 (3d Cir. 1990). In contrast, the 18
plaintiffs here all have, or will, become eligible for the Golden 80 or 19
90 benefits simply through the passage of time. 20
For these reasons we hold that the plaintiffs have satisfied (or 21
will satisfy) the preamendment conditions and their Golden 80 and 22
90 benefits are protected by the anti‐cutback rule. 23
CONCLUSION 24
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 25

-- 14 of 14 --