10-3917, 10-3918, 10-3988 & 10-3989 Thompson v. Retirement Plan for Employees of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Listen to this article

Employment
ERISA; deference

Where an ERISA plan is liable for damages, its method for calculating damages is not entitled to deference.
“[T]he Plan defendants did not exercise interpretive discretion over the projection rate for calculating future interest credits. Nor did the Plan terms permit such interpretation. Therefore, this is not case about the fiduciaries’ construal of the Plan, and the Supreme Court’s Firestone and Conkright decisions have little authoritative to say. Especially given the IRS Notice, we are loath to convert this into a matter of Plan discretion for the first time in connection with calculating damages for participants who have long since left the Plans. In hindsight, it seems that the defendants had no way to escape being accountable for the unlawful wash calculation once it was codified in the Plans (other than perhaps procuring an amendment of the Plan terms from the employer). This was an unfortunate predicament for the Plan defendants, but that does not mean they are now entitled to deference in calculating the plaintiffs’ post-hoc recovery.”
Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

10-3917, 10-3918, 10-3988 & 10-3989 Thompson v. Retirement Plan for Employees of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Cudahy, J.

Full Text