Where a plaintiff has brought suit seeking increased pension benefits, the defendant employer is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff fails to show that the defendant’s pension determination was arbitrary and capricious.
“Plaintiff Thomas Kelly brings this suit against his former employer, Defendant Valeo North America, Inc. (‘Valeo’), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (‘ERISA’), 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq., seeking increased pension benefits. Valeo has agreed that Kelly is entitled to a retirement benefit under the Valeo Lighting Salaried Pension Plan (‘the Plan’), but the dispute is over the type and amount of the monthly pension benefit Kelly may receive under the Plan. Valeo asserts that Kelly may receive a Deferred Vested benefit under the Plan, and that the benefit is subject to actuarial reductions because Kelly retired before age 65, while Kelly asserts he is entitled to his full benefit amount as an Early Retirement benefit, without any reductions. …
“… Kelly fails to show that Valeo’s pension determination was arbitrary and capricious. His Section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim therefore fails and will be dismissed. …
“Valeo argues that to the extent Kelly asserts a claim under ERISA for benefits pursuant to the Pension Preservation Plan (‘PPP’), it should be dismissed for several reasons, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Kelly’s failure to instruct Valeo regarding how he would like to proceed with his PPP benefit, or his failure to dispute that he was married as of his benefit commencement date. … Kelly disagrees with Valeo’s arguments and contends that he is entitled to 100% of his PPP benefit using 23.1 years of Accredited Service. …
“Kelly does not dispute that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to a claim for PPP benefits. He instead alleges that Valeo is at fault for failing to inform him of his duty to exhaust. … That argument is readily rejected as the PPP is an ERISA plan and the Sixth Circuit has ‘read an exhaustion requirement into the statute.’ … The Court finds that Kelly has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to a claim for PPP benefits. …
“Valeo argues that it is entitled to judgment on Kelly’s failure to provide documents claims on four grounds: (1) the claim is time-barred; (2) Kelly’s request provided no ‘clear notice’ in that triggered Valeo’s obligations to provide documents; (3) even if clear notice was given, Valeo provided Kelly with all of the documents it was obligated to provide; and (4) Kelly was not prejudiced as a result of not receiving certain documents. …
“Accordingly, taking ‘a common-sense approach,’ the June 5, 2019 production of the SPD ‘should have alerted’ Kelly to protect his rights and assert a claim under §1132(c) if he believed the production was inadequate. He failed to do so until he filed this lawsuit almost 5 years later, well after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations. His §1132(c) claim therefore may be dismissed with prejudice.”