Comments on: A New “Or” Case! http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » More for Fans of “And” and “Or” http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2814 AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » More for Fans of “And” and “Or” Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:21:59 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/#comment-2814 [...] on the heels of last month’s or case comes one about [...] [...] on the heels of last month’s or case comes one about [...]

]]> By: Chris Lemens http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2803 Chris Lemens Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:27:21 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/#comment-2803 What is interesting in this case is that "or" was NOT read to mean "and" -- it was read to mean "plus." If the plan had to prove that there had been a "reduction in the Employee’s salary AND bonus opportunity," surely that would mean that both salary AND bonus opportunity would have to decrease. If the document meant total compensation, or the sum of salary and bonus opportunity, it should have said so. What is interesting in this case is that “or” was NOT read to mean “and” — it was read to mean “plus.” If the plan had to prove that there had been a “reduction in the Employee’s salary AND bonus opportunity,” surely that would mean that both salary AND bonus opportunity would have to decrease. If the document meant total compensation, or the sum of salary and bonus opportunity, it should have said so.

]]> By: Marc Mayerson http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2527 Marc Mayerson Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:54:31 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/#comment-2527 A new Canadian insurance law case finds or means or not and, see http://www.cavanaghwilliams.com/blawg/?p=284 Cheers. A new Canadian insurance law case finds or means or not and, see http://www.cavanaghwilliams.com/blawg/?p=284

Cheers.

]]> By: Reuben http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2357 Reuben Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:43:03 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/#comment-2357 Was this change in compensation overall significant enough to entitle the person to severance benefits? The purpose of the plan is to provide some protection to employees when new management changes things. Hopefully the law is not such that whatever management does (absent extreme abuse of discretion ) is okay. Where in these opinions do the judges meaningfully consider what this woman's situation was and how significant was the change in her compensation arrangement? I feel the case includes inadequate discussion and analysis of these issues. Was this change in compensation overall significant enough to entitle the person to severance benefits? The purpose of the plan is to provide some protection to employees when new management changes things. Hopefully the law is not such that whatever management does (absent extreme abuse of discretion ) is okay. Where in these opinions do the judges meaningfully consider what this woman’s situation was and how significant was the change in her compensation arrangement? I feel the case includes inadequate discussion and analysis of these issues.

]]> By: BarrySanders20 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2355 BarrySanders20 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:56:03 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/02/04/new-or-case/#comment-2355 The decision is driven by the requirement that, if the ERISA plan language confers discretion upon the plan administrator, courts defer to those interpretations unless such interpretations are "arbitrary and capricious" (or an "abuse of discretion" or "downright unreasonable"). The only way the court may overturn the plan administrator's decision is if no reasonable person could reach that conclusion. For that reason, this case is not the best example of the "and" vs. "or" dispute, precisely because the court is granting wide latitude to the plan administrator's decision, as it must under ERISA case law. The question before the court was not whether the plan administrator was correct, but merely whether it had abused its discretion. According to the court, reasonable minds can disagree, so the plan administraor's interpretation prevails. The decision is driven by the requirement that, if the ERISA plan language confers discretion upon the plan administrator, courts defer to those interpretations unless such interpretations are “arbitrary and capricious” (or an “abuse of discretion” or “downright unreasonable”). The only way the court may overturn the plan administrator’s decision is if no reasonable person could reach that conclusion. For that reason, this case is not the best example of the “and” vs. “or” dispute, precisely because the court is granting wide latitude to the plan administrator’s decision, as it must under ERISA case law. The question before the court was not whether the plan administrator was correct, but merely whether it had abused its discretion. According to the court, reasonable minds can disagree, so the plan administraor’s interpretation prevails.

]]>