Pension Benefits

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: William Rabinak v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund,

Case No.: 15-1717

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges

Focus: Pension Benefits

Quarterly payments to appellant for Board Service were not included in the pension plans, which only covered salary.

“Rabinak also argues that the determination was arbitrary and capricious for failure to provide specific reasons for its exclusion of the quarterly payments. A decision must give   “specific reasons” for the denial. 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1). But “that is not the same thing as the reasoning behind the reasons” or “the interpretive process that generated the reason for the de‐ nial.” Gallo v. Amoco Corp., 102 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Militello v. Cent. States, Se. and Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 360 F.3d 681, 689 (7th Cir. 2004). The important point is that the reason given is a sufficient explanation to allow the recipient to “formulate his further challenge to the denial.” Id. The plan’s denial did so here, and Rabinak has formulated and made well‐developed arguments from the beginning that the Board payments should be included in “Compensation.”

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.