No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court entered judgment for the defendant plan administrator consistent with the Sixth Circuit's reversal, which held that plaintiff's credited service for pension accrual purposes began in 2004, not 1992, and denied plaintiff's motion to amend to add a breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Miller v. Consolidated Nuclear Security Retirement Plan
What Happened
Miller disagreed with his employer's retirement plan over when his pension benefits should start being calculated. Miller argued his credited service began in 1992, but the plan said it started in 2004—a 12-year difference that significantly affected how much pension money he would receive. Miller sued the plan administrator for breach of contract.
The Court's Decision
The court sided with the retirement plan. It agreed that Miller's credited service for pension benefits began in 2004, not 1992. The court also rejected Miller's attempt to add a claim that the plan administrators violated their fiduciary duties to him.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that workers should carefully review their pension plan documents and understand when the plan says their service credit begins. If you believe your employer made an error with your pension calculations, you may need to act quickly and have strong documentation supporting your position. Disputes over retirement benefits can be complicated, and courts often uphold plan administrators' decisions if the plan language supports them.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.