Schena v. Metropolitan Life Retirement Plan for United States Employees

What Happened
Robert Schena worked for the federal government and later transferred to a job covered by Metropolitan Life's retirement plan. When he transferred, he received documents that seemed to promise he would get full credit for his previous government service time when calculating his pension benefits. However, when Schena retired, MetLife only counted his service time from when he started working under their plan, not his earlier federal service. This resulted in lower pension payments than Schena expected. He sued MetLife, claiming they broke their promise.

What the Court Decided
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of MetLife. The court found that the transfer documents Schena received were not official plan documents under federal pension law (ERISA). Since these weren't binding legal documents, MetLife wasn't required to honor what appeared to be promises about service credit. The court said MetLife correctly calculated Schena's pension based only on his service time under their plan.

Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that not all employer communications about benefits are legally binding promises. Workers should carefully review official plan documents rather than relying on informal communications or transfer paperwork when understanding their pension benefits.