Estate of Barton v. ADT Sec. Servs. Pension Plan

• Decision Date: 21 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 13–56379.,13–56379.
• Citation: 820 F.3d 1060
• Parties: ESTATE OF Bruce H. BARTON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES PENSION PLAN, a pension plan; Tyco International Management Company, as plan sponsor; Tyco International Management Company, LLC, Administrative Committee, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

820 F.3d 1060

ESTATE OF Bruce H. BARTON^* Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
ADT SECURITY SERVICES PENSION PLAN, a pension plan; Tyco International Management Company, as plan sponsor; Tyco International Management Company, LLC, Administrative Committee, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 13–56379.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 23, 2015.
Filed April 21, 2016.

820 F.3d 1061

Morris S. Getzels (argued), Morris S. Getzels Law Office, Tarzana, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Stuart D. Tochner (argued), Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Beverly Reid O'Connell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:12–cv–06971–BRO–CW.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, SANDRA S. IKUTA, and JOHN B. OWENS, Circuit Judges.

820 F.3d 1062

OPINION

OWENS, Circuit Judge:

Bruce Barton appeals from the district court's judgment concluding that the ADT Security Services Pension Plan Administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying Barton's request for pension benefits. Because the district court did not have the benefit of our analysis regarding the burden of proof in a case such as this, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Barton's Employment History

The parties dispute Bruce Barton's employment history with the American District Telegraph Company (ADT) and/or its affiliates (ADT-related entities). Barton asserts that he worked for ADT from November 1967 until he resigned in September 1986. The parties agree that he also worked for a moving company for a short period in 1968 and served in the Marine Reserves from 1965–1971.¹

The three named defendants in this case—ADT Security Services Pension Plan (pension plan), Tyco International Management Company (plan sponsor), and Tyco International Management Company, LLC Administrative Committee (plan administrator)—maintain that they have access to the pension records passed on by ADT, Inc., which Tyco acquired in 1997.

B. Relevant Pension Plans

Because Barton's employment spanned eighteen years, two different plans govern his eligibility for a pension benefit: the plan in effect January 1, 1968 (1968 Plan) and the plan in effect January 1, 1985 (1985 Plan). Under the terms of the 1985 Plan, the 1968 Plan governs Barton's service through December 31, 1975, and the 1985 Plan governs his service as of January 1, 1976. Barton maintains that his right to a pension vested because, although he stopped working before normal retirement age, he completed at least ten years of “continuous service” with the company.

The 1985 Plan defines “Company” as “American District Telegraph Company and such of its Affiliated Companies as have adopted the Plan and have been admitted to participation therein by the Board or any one or more of them, and any corporation succeeding to the rights and assuming the obligations of any such company.” An “Affiliated Company” is “a company which is a member of a controlled group of corporations of which the American District Telegraph Company is also a member.” The 1968 Plan defines “Company” as the “American District Telegraph Company and those controlled companies authorized by the Board of Directors to participate in the Plan.”

The 1985 Plan defines “Continuous Service” as follows. For employment through December 31, 1975, “Continuous Service shall be that service determined under the terms of the Plan as it was constituted on December 31, 1975.” After January 1, 1976, “[o]ne year of Continuous Service shall be recorded for any Plan Year during which an Employee has 1,000 or more Hours of Service.” A plan year in which an employee works 500 hours or less is considered a “break in service.” Additionally,

820 F.3d 1063

to the extent required by ERISA or determined by the Board of Directors, if an employee transfers to a participating company from an affiliated company after January 1, 1976, he will receive credit for his continuous service to that affiliate prior to 1976, even if the affiliate had not adopted the Plan.

The 1968 Plan does not define “continuous employment,” save for the following provision regarding absence without pay:

Any absence from the service without pay ... shall be considered as a break in the continuity of service, and persons re-employed after such a break shall be considered as new employees and the term of employment reckoned from the date of such re-employment; except that any such person reemployed for at least ten continuous years after such a break shall have his term of employment reckoned from the date of his initial employment less the entire period of such break.

C. Barton's Request for Pension Benefits

In 2010, Barton reached age sixty-five and contacted the pension record keeper about benefits. A December 13, 2010 letter from a pension benefit administrator in response stated that the administrator “could not find any information on [Barton's] employment with ADT Security Services, Inc.,” and enclosed instructions for navigating the pension claim procedure. Barton then provided documentation regarding his employment with ADT-related entities. In a June 24, 2011 letter, the pension record keeper said the documents Barton had sent failed to establish that he had a vested pension, and that if Barton had additional documentation—for example, a letter of vested benefits—he could file a claim with the Employee Benefits Committee. In response to a telephone inquiry, Barton was again informed that he was ineligible for a pension benefit.

Barton filed a claim with the Committee on October 3, 2011. He stated that two former colleagues from the ADT office in Portland, Maine had provided similar documentation and received ADT pensions. He included copies of correspondence from the pension record keeper and the following documents:

• November 11, 1977 letter from R.B. Carey, Jr., President of ADT, on ADT letterhead listing an address of One World Trade Center, Suite 9200, NY, NY, addressed to “Mr. B.N. Barton, American District Telegraph Company” at the same World Trade Center address and suite. The letter congratulates Barton on his completion, on November 13, 1977, of ten years of service as a “member of the ADT organization.”

• Copies of key cards and identification/business cards issued by “ADT.”

• W–2 statements from 1980–1983 and 1986, listing employer as “American District Telegraph Co.” at 1 World Trade Center, NY, N.Y. and showing an X marking the “Pension Plan” box.

• Pay stubs from 1981 and 1985 listing “American District Telegraph” at the bottom.

• Personnel Data Maintenance forms from 1984, 1985, and 1986 listing Barton's current annual salary, raise, and new annual salary.

• Social Security Administration documentation summarizing Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) withholding from 1968–1980.²

820 F.3d 1064

D. Committee's Denial of Barton's Claim

The Committee denied Barton's claim on January 10, 2012. It reported that it had reviewed the documents listed above as well as the following documents that Barton had provided earlier:

• Barton's September 11, 1986 resignation letter on ADT letterhead.

• September 12, 1986 Memorandum on ADT letterhead confirming receipt of a credit card, tools, and company truck.

• Barton's September 12, 1986 Exit Interview Questionnaire that listed a November 10, 1967 date of employment.

• Handwritten telephone conversation record describing Barton's July 6, 2011 call to the pension record keeper.

The Committee detailed the relevant plan provisions and wrote:

[T]here are no Plan records indicating your eligibility for participation in the Plan, your actual participation in the Plan, or your eligibility for benefits under the Plan. In addition, it was unclear from the information you provided whether you had a continuous term of employment or earned the required service to earn at least 10 Years of Continuous Service so as to be vested in a Plan benefit.

The Committee further explained that it was “not clear based on the information” that Barton provided that he met the terms of continuous employment. In particular, the Committee noted that the FICA records and W–2s did not cover each year of claimed employment, and that some documents lacked identifying information. Such information “did not override or contradict the Plan records.” The letter detailed the appeals procedure and suggested Barton could “supply copies of any further evidence ... that would indicate that [he is] entitled to a Plan benefit, such as certified Social Security records for the entire period of time from 1967 through 1986 or a pension benefit statement or written evidence that [he was] eligible to receive a Plan benefit.”

On January 19, 2012, Barton responded and requested copies of “all plan documents, records and other information affecting the claim per your document concerning Applying for Benefits and Claim and Appeal Procedures.” He...