CA1: Gillette’s alleged shaving in ERISA plan upheld

Livick v. Gillette Company, No. 07-2108.  Okay, another ERISA case.  After a grant of summary judgment to Gillette and its retirement plan.  There was a “miscalculation” of the plaintiff’s benefits by a “human resources representative” and various websites based on an incorrect assumption that years he put in for Parker Pen (a company that was later bought by Gillette) would count.  However, the websites had disclaimers saying that the “terms” of the plan would prevail.  He eventually made some decisions based on erroneous figures. 

Good News!  You can read more below the fold! 

The First holds that under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) (ERISA equitable relief), Gillette didn’t breach a fiduciary duty.  It then concludes that the HR person wasn’t an actual fiduciary, and there can’t be a negligent hiring claim inserted into the fiduciary breach claim.  The First acknowledges that it would have been possible to prevail here (at least in other courts) where the defendant didn’t provide details of the plan.

The First explains that this looks and smells like an estoppel argument, but he didn’t really argue it like one.  However, it concludes that because the plan was unambiguous (and ERISA plans need to be modified in writing), the defendant wins.

The First also finds it wasn’t an abuse of discretion to strike part of a summary judgment affidavit that “would be inadmissible due to its lack of relevance to and probity of the issues of the case.”

Stephen Rosenberg comments here.