274 F.Supp.2d 1010 (S.D.Ill. 2003), Civ. 99-829, Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan

Docket Nº:Civ. 99-829
Citation:274 F.Supp.2d 1010
Party Name:Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan
Case Date:July 31, 2003
Court:United States District Courts, 7th Circuit, Southern District of Illinois

Page 1010

274 F.Supp.2d 1010 (S.D.Ill. 2003)

Kathi COOPER, Beth Harrington, and Matthew Hillesheim, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,


The IBM PERSONAL PENSION PLAN and IBM Corporation, Defendants.

No. CIV. 99-829-GPM.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

July 31, 2003

Page 1011

Steven A. Katz, Douglas R. Sprong, Korein Tillery, Swansea, IL, Robert F. Hill, John H. Evans, Hill & Robbins, William K. Carr, Law Offices of William K. Carr, Denver, CO, for Plaintiffs.

Jeffrey G. Huvelle, Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC,

Page 1012

Frederick J. Hess, Lewis, Rice et al., Belleville, IL, for Defendants.


MURPHY, Chief Judge:

The Cooper class challenges IBM's pension plan ("Plan") as violative of the age discrimination prohibitions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. All pending motions are listed in the appendix to this Memorandum and Order. (See Appendix A.)

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff Cooper has been a Plan participant since May 21, 1979, the day she began her employment with IBM. Plaintiff Harrington was a Plan participant from 1990 to August 2000, when she terminated her employment with IBM. Towards the end of Harrington's employment, her pension benefits accrued pursuant to a Plan amendment made effective July 1, 1999. Plaintiff Hillesheim began employment with IBM in 1996 and terminated his employment in March 2000. He is a Plan participant, but because he was employed for fewer than five years, the benefits he accrued under the Plan did not vest.


The IBM Plan is a defined benefit pension plan 1 that provides benefits for IBM employees. Since 1995, the Plan has been amended twice. The changes created by these amendments are the basis of Plaintiffs' lawsuit.

A. The January 1, 1995 Amendment

Before 1995, the IBM Plan provided benefits in the form of a lifetime annuity and a cash balance accumulation. On January 1, 1995, IBM's Board of Directors enacted an amendment to the Plan which adopted a plan design known as a pension equity plan. IBM coined its new design the Pension Credit Formula ("PCF").

PCF participants accrue a normal retirement benefit payable in the form of a life annuity commencing at age 65. Each year, a participant earns a specific number of "base points," which is determined by the employee's age in the year worked. Additionally, a participant can earn "excess points" if his or her five year average earnings are above social security compensation. Under this framework, however, a participant is permitted to accumulate no more than 425 base points and 75 excess points.

A participant's base points and excess points are applied to a five step formula to determine the monthly retirement benefit at age 65. Under this formula, a participant's base points are added, divided by 100, and multiplied by the average of his or her highest consecutive five year earnings. Then, after accounting for the participant's excess points, that number is divided by a "benefit conversion factor."

The class claims that the PCF violates ERISA because it is age discriminatory. This claim is based on the PCF's benefit conversion factor which increases in direct correlation to an employee's age. According to the class, this increase causes an older employee to receive a lower rate of benefit accrual and to have a smaller accrued benefit at age 65 than a younger employee, despite having worked the same number of years at the same salary as the younger employee.

B. The July 1, 1999 Amendment

Effective July 1, 1999, IBM again amended its Plan to create its Cash Balance

Page 1013

Formula ("CBF"). Under the CBF, a participant's benefit is determined by reference to a hypothetical account known as a Personal Pension Account ("PPA"). Every month, a participant's PPA accumulates "pay credits" at a rate of 5% of the employee's salary and "interest credits" at a rate one percentage point higher than the rate of return on one year treasury securities. When a participant's employment with IBM ends, he may withdraw his account balance as a lump sum, convert the account balance into an immediate life annuity, or defer the receipt of a lump sum payment or a life annuity until a later date. While a former employee is unable to earn additional pay credits, he continues to accumulate interest credits until his PPA balance is withdrawn or converted into a life annuity.

The class alleges that the CBF also violates ERISA's laws against age discrimination. This claim is based on how interest credits accrue on a participant's PPA balance until he reaches normal retirement age.

II. Standard of Review

All but one of the motions before the Court are motions for summary judgment. The standard applied to summary judgment motions filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is well-settled and has been succinctly stated as follows:

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, [the court] must view the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Because the primary purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims, the nonmovant may not rest on the pleadings but must respond, with affidavits or otherwise, setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The evidence must create more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. A mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmovant's position is insufficient; a party will be successful in opposing summary judgment only when it presents definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion.

Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 931-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

III. Analysis

The Court's analysis will be divided into two sections: (1) all motions related to IBM's 1995 Pension Credit Formula; and (2) all motions related to IBM's 1999 Cash Balance Formula.


The class alleges that the terms of the IBM Plan, as amended January 1, 1995, violate ERISA § 204(b) (1) (G) & (H). Specifically, the class claims that under the PCF, benefits are reduced on account of increases in age or service in violation of § 204(b) (1) (G) and that the benefits accrue at a rate which is reduced because of age or the attainment of any age in violation of § 204(b) (1) (H). The class seeks to have Plan benefits determined in a manner consistent with these ERISA provisions and to enjoin IBM from continuing these violations.

Defendants move to dismiss the § 204(b) (1) (H) claim on the grounds that the ERISA age discrimination provisions apply only to employees who have reached normal retirement age (age 65), arguing that the younger Plaintiffs lack standing to sue. Defendants are wrong.

Page 1014

ERISA § 502(a) provides that "[a] civil action may be brought (3) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). The plain language of this provision confers statutory standing to plan participants, such as the named Plaintiffs, who seek to protect their employee benefit rights. Because Congress is entitled to enact statutes which create standing where it would otherwise not exist, see Village of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1526 (7th Cir. 1990), Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 103) is denied.

A. § 204(b) (1) (G) Claim

Cooper filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 87) on July 18, 2002, seeking, in part, a determination that the PCF violates the age discrimination provision of ERISA § 204(b) (1) (G) because the amount of an employee's accrued benefit under the Plan decreases on account of the employee's age. Defendants have likewise filed a motion for summary judgment on the § 204(b) (1) (G) claim, arguing that no participant in the IBM Plan has ever experienced a reduction in his or her accrued benefit on account of an increase in age or service and, therefore, the named Plaintiffs lack standing to assert this claim.

Section 204(b) (1) (G) has been part of ERISA since its inception in 1974 and provides that "a defined benefit plan shall be treated as not satisfying the requirements of this paragraph if the participant's accrued benefit is reduced on account of any increase in his age or service." 29 U.S.C. § 1054(b) (1) (G). In the context of a defined benefit plan, such as the IBM Plan, the term "accrued benefit" means " 'the individual's accrued benefit determined under the plan and expressed in the form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age.' " 29 U.S.C. § 1002(23) (A). "Normal retirement age" is 65. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(24); see also Esden v. Bank of Boston, 229 F.3d 154, 162 (2nd Cir. 2000).

The PCF adopted by IBM in the January 1, 1995, amendment to its Plan violates ERISA. The following examples illustrate the violation.

A participant's retirement benefit is computed under the PCF by a five step formula: (1) the total number of base points earned at that time, up to a maximum of 425, are added and then divided by 100; (2) the number from the first step is multiplied by the average of the employee's highest consecutive...

To continue reading