The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to carve out an exception to its position that ERISA administrators are to be given deference in interpretation of a plan―even when a court has determined that the administrator’s prior interpretation of the same plan provision was erroneous under the deferential review standard.

The Supreme Court upheld its position on deference in its April 21, 2010, ruling in Conkright v. Frommert, U.S. No. 08-180. It noted that deference to plan administrators promotes a series of benefits, including efficiency, predictability, and uniformity.

Conkright involved employees of Xerox Corporation who left the company in the 1980s, obtaining a lump-sum distribution of benefits, and then were later rehired. In determining the employees' benefit levels upon rehire by Xerox, the administrator initially interpreted the pension plan to require a "phantom account" method.

The employees challenged the "phantom method" in court, which declared that the method represented an invalid interpretation of the plan under the deferential review standard. Thereafter, the plan administrator proposed a new approach, asserting that it also should be given deference. Applying a "one-strike-and-you're-out" approach, the District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not apply a deferential standard of review to the administrator’s new interpretation. Instead, the court adopted an approach proposed by the employees. Xerox’s plan administrator appealed.

The Supreme Court held, 5-3, that the plan administrator's new interpretation was owed deference, notwithstanding the "single honest mistake" made in originally applying the "phantom method" to determine the employees' benefits. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority, beginning his opinion with, "People make mistakes. Even administrators of ERISA plans." In so stating, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that deference should not be given solely because an administrator’s previous interpretation had been overturned.

The Supreme Court stated that deference to plan administrators promotes:

  • Efficiency by encouraging resolution of benefits disputes through internal administrative proceedings rather than costly litigation
  • Predictability because an employer is able to rely on the expertise of the plan administrator, rather than worry about inaccurate or unexpected interpretations that can result from court involvement
  • Uniformity in preventing varying court interpretations of ERISA plans throughout the country

For the majority of the Supreme Court, the advantages of deference outweighed the dissenting Justices' concern that deference would encourage plan administrators to adopt unreasonable interpretations of plans, assuming they would be given a second chance to revise interpretations if their original interpretations were rejected.

Although the Supreme Court's decision is surely a victory for employers and plan administrators, ERISA remains a minefield for employers and plan administrators. Attorneys at Ballard Spahr stand ready to respond to your ERISA questions and concerns. Please feel free to contact Brian D. Pedrow, 215.864.8108 or pedrow@ballardspahr.com; Clifford J. Schoner, 215.864.8626 or schonerc@ballardspahr.com; or Michelle M. McGeogh, 410.528.5661 or mcgeoghm@ballardspahr.com.


Copyright © 2010 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.