Teufel v. The Northern Trust Company

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action plaintiff’s ERISA action alleging that defendant’s 2012 change in pension formula that resulted in plaintiff receiving less pension benefits as of date of said charge violated anti-cutback provisions of ERISA, as well as ADEA. While plaintiff argued that 2012 amendment to pension plan, which treated salaries as increasing at only 1.5 percent per year, instead of 5 percent as asserted by plaintiff, constituted decrease in his accrued benefit, plaintiff’s expectation of future salary increases was not accrued benefit, since plaintiff’s hopes as to what may happen in future had not accrued in past. Also, plaintiff could not establish viable ADEA action, since: (1) terms of instant plan, as whole, and its 2012 amendment, is age-neutral, where pension eligibility is distinct from age; and (2) instant pension plan complied with section 623(i) of ADEA, where plaintiff’s benefits depended on number of years of credited service and plaintiff’s salary, not his age. Fact that salary generally rises with age and extra year of credited service goes with extra year of age did not require different result, since said criteria differed from age discrimination.