Holt v. Raytheon Techs. Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-11244-FDS |
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.3d 272 |
| Parties | Michael J. HOLT, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION ; Raytheon Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan; Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees; and Kelly Lappin, Administrator, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
James F. Kavanaugh, Jr., Johanna L. Matloff, Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
This action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 ("ERISA"). Plaintiff Michael Holt asserts a claim for equitable relief under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA (Count 1), a benefit-denial claim under § 502(a)(1)(B) (Count 2), and a claim for attorneys’ fees and costs under § 502(g) (Count 3) against defendants Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Raytheon Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan, Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, and Kelly Lappin.
The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has also moved to strike certain screenshots taken from Raytheon's pension-system database.
The dispute at the center of this lawsuit is whether plaintiff received a lump-sum distribution of his retirement benefit of $30,000 in 1995 while working at Texas Instruments, whose defense and electronics division was acquired by Raytheon. The written records from that period consist, in their entirety, of two screenshots suggesting that the amount was paid. There are no records of any request for, or election to take, a lump-sum payout; no bank records, from either side, indicating that the amount was paid; and no evidence that plaintiff's wife executed a waiver of her interest in the retirement benefit. The Raytheon Benefit Appeals Committee concluded that plaintiff received the lump-sum distribution, and therefore he did not receive credit for his time at TI in the calculation of his monthly retirement benefit.
This case also involves a somewhat odd set of circumstances that affects the scope of this Court's review. The relevant plan provides that the plan administrator may delegate its discretionary authority, including to a committee. The plan also establishes the Benefit Appeals Committee to review denied claims. But the middle step is missing: there is no actual, express delegation of the administrator's discretionary authority to that committee. The Court therefore may not apply a deferential standard to the committee's decision.
In any event, for the reasons set forth below, the Court will remand the matter to the plan administrator for further proceedings. Accordingly, and for the following reasons, the motions for summary judgment will be denied, the motion to strike will be denied as moot, and the matter will be remanded to the plan administrator for further review.
The following facts are as set forth in the record and are undisputed except as noted.1
Michael J. Holt is a retiree who formerly worked for a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation. (Holt Aff. ¶ 10). He is married to Genetta Holt. (Id. at ¶ 4).
Raytheon Technologies Corporation ("Raytheon") is a corporation engaged principally in the business of aerospace and defense technology. Raytheon Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan ("Non-Bargaining Plan") and Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees ("Salaried Plan") are two plans administered by Raytheon.2
Holt was a Business Development Director for Texas Instruments, Inc. ("TI"), from June 8, 1981, through April 1, 1995. (Holt Aff. ¶ 14). He was fully vested in the Texas Instruments Employees Pension Plan ("TI Plan") when he left TI in 1995. (Id. at ¶ 18; see Fowler Aff. ¶ 1). After leaving TI, he worked as a Business Development Director for Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Holt Aff. ¶ 13).
Holt accepted an offer of employment from Raytheon Missile Systems on June 28, 1999. (Id. at ¶ 26). Ronald Morgan, who served as a Business Development Vice President, interviewed and hired him. (Morgan Aff. ¶ 6).
Upon hiring, Holt was classified as a "Raytheon rehiring employee" because TI's defense and electronics division had been acquired by Raytheon in 1997, and his employment at TI had terminated less than five years earlier. (Holt Aff. ¶¶ 22, 26; see Pl. Ex. H, 1). According to Holt, an HR representative at Raytheon informed him that "rejoining with Raytheon provided for credited service for pension benefits" and that Raytheon would "bridge" his 13 years of service with TI. (Holt Aff. ¶ 22). He says that he accepted the offer at Raytheon, despite a reduction in salary, based on that representation. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-27). He further contends that he would not have otherwise accepted the offer. (Id. at ¶ 27).
Defendants dispute that such a representation was made. They further contend that Morgan, who attended the meeting with HR, does not attest that Raytheon or its HR representative in fact told Holt that he would receive 13 years of pension service credit.
Because there are numerous qualifiers in Morgan's affidavit and the parties characterize it differently, the Court includes an excerpt here:
Defendants contend that Morgan's affidavit does not state that he has any familiarity with the terms of either plan, particularly what those terms required with respect to service credit. They further object that Holt did not present those facts during the ERISA plan appeal process and also did not allege them in the complaint. (Defs. Ex. C, 33; see Complaint ¶¶ 9-36).3
Holt received service awards from Raytheon on each of his 15, 20, 25, and 30-year anniversaries, which were calculated based on his combined service at TI and Raytheon. (Holt Aff. ¶ 28). He retired from his position with Raytheon on January 31, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 10).
Holt currently receives a monthly pension benefit of approximately $4,054 per month. (Defs. Ex. E; Fowler Aff. ¶ 3). That benefit is based on service with Raytheon from June 28, 1999, through January 31, 2020. . He is currently a participant in the Non-Bargaining Plan, although he disputes whether that is the appropriate plan under which he should receive his pension benefit. (Fowler Aff. ¶ 1).
In July 1997, Raytheon acquired the assets of TI Defense Systems and Electronics through a subsidiary, Raytheon TI Systems, for $2.95 billion. (Pl. Ex. D, 7). On September 30, 1997, TI transferred pension assets from the TI Plan to Raytheon totaling $305,102,650, and Raytheon assumed the actuarial liabilities associated with employees transferred to it. (Id. ). Raytheon then established a defined benefit plan, the Raytheon TI Systems Employees Pension Plan ("RTIS Plan"), for the transferred and former TI Defense employees. (Pl. Ex. J, 11, 14, 37). The RTIS Plan was amended and restated effective July 11, 1997. (Pl. Ex. E, 5).4 Raytheon also took over the electronic records relating to the TI Plan's administration. (Fowler Dep. 61).
Effective January 1, 2001, the RTIS Plan merged into, and became part of, the Salaried Plan sponsored by Raytheon. (Pl. Ex. F, 7).5 The Salaried Plan contains generally applicable provisions, as well as specific provisions in Exhibit E – Raytheon TI Systems Employees Pension Plan. (Id. at 203).
Eligible participants of the Salaried Plan may receive pension benefits based on the length of time the employee works in "Covered Employment." (Pl. Ex. F, 211-12). The plan also provides for cashouts, and states that "[i]f a fully vested Participant receives his entire Accrued Benefit as a lump sum, he shall lose all prior Benefit Accrual Service credit." (Id. ).
The Salaried Plan gives discretionary authority to the Plan Administrator (that is, Raytheon) to construe the terms of the plan and to determine eligibility and entitlement to benefits. (See id. at 32, 41-42). Specifically, the Plan provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial