Vendura, Jr. v. Boxer ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 15-2387
    GEORGE J. VENDURA, JR.,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    JONATHAN BOXER; NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION; NORTHROP GRUMMAN
    SPACE & MISSION SYSTEMS CORP. SALARIED PENSION PLAN; KEN
    BEDINGFIELD; MICHAEL HARDESTY; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SPACE & MISSION
    SYSTEMS CORP. SALARIED PENSION PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE;
    NORTHROP GRUMMAN AEROSPACE SECTOR; TIFFANY MCCONNELL; NORTHROP
    GRUMMAN SPACE & MISSION SYSTEMS CORP.; DENISE PEPPARD,
    Defendants, Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Torruella, Lipez, and Barron,
    Circuit Judges.
    Stephen D. Rosenberg, with whom Caroline Fiore and The
    Wagner Law Group were on brief, for appellant.
    Brian D. Netter, with whom Nancy G. Ross and Mayer Brown
    LLP were on brief, for appellees.
    January 11, 2017
    BARRON, Circuit Judge.           This appeal involves a suit
    for pension benefits that George Vendura brings against Northrop
    Grumman Corp. ("Northrop") and a number of related entities and
    individuals.1     The key point of contention concerns the number of
    "years of benefit service" that should be credited to Vendura in
    calculating his pension benefits under his pension plan.                     We
    affirm    the   judgment   below,    which   grants   summary     judgment   to
    defendants.
    I.
    Vendura was hired by TRW Inc. ("TRW") in 1993 and
    became a participant in the TRW Salaried Pension Plan ("TRW
    Plan").     After Vendura worked for TRW for seven years, he went
    on medical leave in June of 2000, in consequence of work-related
    injuries that he had suffered much earlier.              During this leave,
    Vendura     received    Social   Security      and    long-term    disability
    benefits.       Vendura also applied for and, he contends, received
    workers' compensation benefits during this time.
    In 2002, Northrop acquired TRW and renamed the company
    Northrup    Grumman    Space   and   Mission   Systems   Corp.    ("NGSMSC").
    1In particular, Vendura brought suit against ten
    corporate and individual defendants: Northrop Grumman Corp.,
    Northrop Grumman Aerospace Sector, Northrop Grumman Space &
    Mission Systems Corp., Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems
    Corp. Salaried Pension Plan, Northrop Grumman Space & Mission
    Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan Administrative Committee,
    Jonathan Boxer, Ken Bedingfield, Michael Hardesty, Tiffany
    Mcconnell, and Denise Peppard.
    - 2 -
    Soon    thereafter,          NGSMSC     attempted       to    terminate      Vendura's
    employment.          Vendura, however, challenged the attempt to lay him
    off,    and,    in     2003,   Vendura      and    NGSMSC     signed    a    settlement
    agreement that kept Vendura on board at NGSMSC.
    The settlement agreement provided that Vendura would
    remain an "employee" of NGSMSC and "receive all benefits and
    rights to which he is entitled pursuant to all benefit plans for
    which    he     is     eligible."          The    settlement     agreement     further
    provided that Vendura would cease to be a NGSMSC employee only
    when one of several specific conditions came to pass.                           One of
    those conditions was that "Vendura's LTD [long-term disability]
    status ends."
    Because      this    case   concerns     a    dispute    over    pension
    benefits       rather       than    employment,        however,    the       settlement
    agreement      matters       only    insofar      as   it    relates    to   Vendura's
    pension plan.           And, the relevant pension plan is the NGSMSC
    Salaried Pension Plan ("NGSMSC Plan"), which, for former TRW
    employees like Vendura, incorporated the eligibility criteria
    set forth in the TRW Plan.
    The    TRW    Plan     provides     that      pension    benefits   for
    participants, like Vendura, are to be calculated on the basis of
    the participant's "Years of Benefit Service."                          Section 2.2 of
    the TRW Plan, in subsection (a), makes clear that such years
    include ones in which a participant receives compensation "for
    - 3 -
    the     performance          of    services."            But,     in     the      subsequent
    subsections of Section 2.2, the TRW Plan allows participants to
    accrue years of benefit service even for periods of time in
    which    the    participant         is    absent      from    work,    so   long    as     that
    absence    is    for    a    reason       that   is    specified       in   one    of     those
    follow-on subsections in Section 2.2.
    Only    two    of    the    follow-on         subsections    are     relevant
    here:     subsections         (b)     and    (c).            Until     1999,      these     two
    subsections read as follows:
    (b) absence without pay from work because of
    injury or occupational disease received in
    the course of his employment with the
    Controlled Group and for which he receives
    Workers' Compensation disability benefits;
    provided, however, that service credit shall
    be limited to a maximum of twelve months
    unless   the   Participant    has  met   the
    eligibility requirements for receiving long
    term disability benefits (whether or not he
    actually receives such benefits);
    (c) absence without pay from                   work due to a
    disability and for which he                   is entitled to
    receive long-term disability                  benefits under
    any plan maintained by a                      member of the
    Controlled Group[.]
    Effective January 1, 1999, however, the TRW Plan was
    amended by, among other things, changing subsection (c).                                  Post-
    amendment, subsection (c) reads as follows:
    (c) absence without pay from                   work due to a
    disability and for which he                   is entitled to
    receive long-term disability                  benefits under
    any plan maintained by a                      member of the
    Controlled Group, provided,                    however, with
    - 4 -
    respect to an absence from work beginning on
    or after January 1, 2000 as a result of
    disability, (i) no more than sixty months of
    Benefit Service will be credited under this
    Section 2.2(c) for a Participant with five
    or more years of Vesting Service and (ii) no
    more than twelve months of Benefit Service
    will be credited under this Section 2.2(c)
    for a Participant with less than five years
    of Vesting Service at the time such absence
    from work commences.
    (emphasis added to highlight the newly added language).
    The proper interpretation of these subsections became
    a subject of controversy after Vendura's long-term disability
    insurer    informed      Vendura   --    in   October    of    2012 --     that    his
    eligibility for long-term disability benefits would expire in
    February of 2013.          Vendura did not dispute that his long-term
    disability benefits would expire at that time, or that, per the
    settlement agreement, his employment with NGSMSC would thus come
    to an end.        For that reason, Vendura inquired about his pension
    benefits    and    received    a   "retirement     kit"       from   the    Northrop
    Grumman Benefits Center.2
    In April of 2013, Vendura filed a claim for pension
    benefits    with    the    "Administrative      Committee"       for    the   NGSMSC
    Plan.      Under   the    documents     comprising      the    NGSMSC      Plan,   the
    Administrative Committee "is the 'plan administrator' under" the
    Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
    2
    More precisely, Vendura received two retirement kits:
    one that would have allowed him to elect a lump-sum distribution
    of his pension, and a second that did not grant him that option.
    - 5 -
    U.S.C.    §   1001    et       seq.,    and   possesses     the   "full    and    sole
    discretionary authority to interpret all plan documents and to
    make all interpretive and factual determinations as to whether
    any individual is entitled to receive any benefit and the amount
    of such benefit under the terms of the Plan."
    In    making       his     pension     benefits      claim     to    the
    Administrative Committee, Vendura argued that he is entitled to
    twenty years of benefit service under the settlement agreement.
    Vendura also argued that, even independent of the settlement
    agreement,     he    is    entitled      to   that   same   number    of   years   of
    benefit   service      under      the    plain    terms   of    subsection   (b)    of
    Section 2.2.         Finally, Vendura argued that he is entitled to
    elect a lump-sum distribution of his pension.
    The     Administrative          Committee        rejected    Vendura's
    arguments in letters sent to him in May and June of 2013.                          The
    letters informed Vendura that he was eligible for a pension
    reflecting only twelve years of benefit service and not the
    twenty years of benefit service that Vendura contended that he
    had accrued.         The letters also rejected Vendura's contention
    that Vendura was entitled to elect a lump-sum distribution of
    his pension.
    The     Administrative           Committee's        calculation       of
    Vendura's     years       of   benefit    service     reflected      the   following
    determinations.        The Administrative Committee concluded that the
    - 6 -
    settlement agreement does not provide for accrual of benefit
    service    beyond      the    right    of    accrual    under       the    NGSMSC    Plan
    itself.    The Administrative Committee further found that, under
    the NGSMSC Plan, by virtue of Section 2.2 of the TRW Plan that
    it incorporates, Vendura was entitled only to five years of
    benefit service for the thirteen years in which he was both
    absent from work due to his disability and for which he was
    eligible for long-term disability benefits.                        The Administrative
    Committee based that determination on the amended version of
    subsection      (c)     of    Section       2.2,     which        the    Administrative
    Committee concluded barred a participant from accruing more than
    sixty   months    of    benefit       service       based    on    the    participant's
    eligibility       for        long-term        disability          benefits.           The
    Administrative Committee therefore credited Vendura with only
    twelve years of benefit service, based on the five years of
    benefit service that he accrued during his absence from work and
    the   seven    years     of    benefit       service    that       he    accrued    under
    subsection (a) of Section 2.2 during his employment with TRW and
    before his disability-based absence began.
    Vendura appealed the decision to the Administrative
    Committee,     which    issued    its       final    decision      denying    Vendura's
    appeal with respect to each of these issues on December 19,
    2013.     So, in 2014, Vendura filed an eight-count complaint in
    - 7 -
    the   United   States   District   Court       for    the   District    of
    Massachusetts against the defendants.
    The main issue on appeal arises under ERISA, which
    permits a pension plan participant to bring a civil action "to
    recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to
    enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify
    his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan."            
    29 U.S.C. § 1132
    (a)(1)(B).   Vendura invokes this provision of ERISA
    in his complaint in requesting that the District Court compel
    defendants to fulfill their obligations under the NGSMSC Plan.
    Vendura also brings a separate state law claim, in which he
    argues that defendants are in breach of their obligations under
    the   settlement   agreement,   given   what     he   contends   is    the
    agreement's relationship to his rights under his pension plan.
    After the defendants moved for summary judgment, the
    District Court granted the motion.         The District Court ruled
    that the settlement agreement alone did not provide Vendura any
    right to accrue years of benefit service beyond those to which
    he would otherwise have been entitled.         The District Court also
    ruled that the Administrative Committee's interpretation of the
    NGSMSC Plan, under which the sixty-month cap on the accrual of
    years of benefit service that subsection (c) sets forth applies
    to Vendura, was not arbitrary and capricious.               And, on that
    basis, the District Court ruled that Vendura was not entitled to
    - 8 -
    pension benefits calculated based on his having accrued twenty
    years of benefit service.              Finally, the District Court ruled
    that, in light of its finding with respect to the number of
    years of benefit service to which Vendura was entitled, Vendura
    also was not entitled to elect a lump-sum distribution of his
    pension.
    This    timely     appeal      of    the     summary     judgment     order
    followed.
    II.
    We start with Vendura's claim based on the settlement
    agreement.      He    argues    that     because        the    settlement      agreement
    makes clear that Vendura remained an employee of NGSMSC until
    his eligibility for long-term disability benefits expired, it
    necessarily also entitled him to continue to accrue years of
    benefit service for pension purposes up until that point in
    time.   And, for that reason, Vendura contends he is entitled to
    the full twenty years of benefit service under the settlement
    agreement.
    The District Court, like the Administrative Committee,
    rejected     this    argument.         We        review       the   District     Court's
    interpretation       of   the    settlement         agreement       de   novo.       See
    OfficeMax, Inc. v. Levesque, 
    658 F.3d 94
    , 97 (1st Cir. 2011)
    ("Contract interpretation . . . is a 'question of law' that is
    reviewed de novo."); see also Hannington v. Sun Life and Health
    - 9 -
    Ins.    Co.,    
    711 F.3d 226
    ,   230    (1st    Cir.     2013)      ("extra-plan
    material" is reviewed de novo).                       And, on de novo review, we
    conclude       that        Vendura's      interpretation        of     the    settlement
    agreement is without merit.
    Vendura is right that, under the settlement agreement,
    he remained an employee of NGSMSC until his eligibility for
    long-term disability benefits expired.                   And he is right that his
    eligibility for those benefits did not expire until February of
    2013.      But the settlement agreement merely provides that Vendura
    is entitled to "all benefits and rights to which he is entitled
    pursuant to all benefit plans for which he is eligible."                              Thus,
    by   its    terms,         the    settlement     agreement      just      provides     that
    Vendura retains the status of an employee and is entitled to
    receive whatever pension benefits under the NGSMSC Plan that he
    would otherwise be entitled to by virtue of being an employee.
    For this reason, the settlement agreement does not help Vendura.
    It merely directs us to examine those provisions of the NGSMSC
    Plan, including those provisions of the TRW Plan that the NGSMSC
    Plan incorporates, which bear on Vendura's right to accrue years
    of benefit service.              And so we now turn to those provisions.
    III.
    As     we     have    noted,      the    NGSMSC       Plan     vests     the
    Administrative         Committee       with     the   authority      to   interpret     and
    apply the relevant provisions.                  As a result, and in accord with
    - 10 -
    the     requirements       of     ERISA,       we     review       the     Administrative
    Committee's interpretations under the deferential arbitrary and
    capricious standard, which is "functionally equivalent to the
    abuse of discretion standard."                 Wright v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons
    Co. Grp. Benefits Plan, 
    402 F.3d 67
    , 74 n.3 (1st Cir. 2005).
    And, under that standard, we must defer to plan administrators
    when    they    "reasonably"          construe      ambiguous      plan    terms.     See,
    e.g., Kolling v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 
    347 F.3d 11
    , 14
    (1st Cir. 2003).
    A.
    In      assessing         the         Administrative           Committee's
    interpretation, it helps first to understand Vendura's proposed
    interpretation.          Under subsection (a) of Section 2.2 of the TRW
    Plan,    Vendura    unquestionably          accrued        seven    years     of    benefit
    service      because     he     was    compensated         for   his      performance    of
    services to TRW for seven years.                    But, he readily concedes, due
    to the disability that he suffered from on-the-job injuries and
    the extended absence from work that resulted, he was not in
    compliance with that condition thereafter.
    Vendura contends, however, that he was in compliance
    with the condition for accruing years of benefit service set
    forth in the very next subsection of Section 2.2 -- subsection
    (b)     --     because     he     contends          that    he     received        workers'
    compensation benefits due to his disability after he was no
    - 11 -
    longer able to work.3                He thus argues that he falls within the
    first half of subsection (b), which provides for the accrual of
    benefit service for those participants who are "absen[t] without
    pay from work because of injury or occupational disease received
    in   the     course      of        [the       participant's]       employment    with    the
    Controlled       Group    and           for    which     [the    participant]     receives
    Workers' Compensation disability benefits."
    But participants who meet the condition specified in
    the first half of subsection (b) are, the rest of subsection (b)
    makes clear, entitled to accrue only one year of benefit service
    on that basis.           And, if that one year is added to the seven
    years for which Vendura provided active service to TRW and was
    compensated, for which subsection (a) entitled him to accrue
    seven years of benefit service, he would be entitled to only a
    total of eight years of benefit service.
    Vendura          nevertheless             continues     undeterred.          He
    explains that the second half of subsection (b) shows that he is
    in fact entitled to the extra twelve years of benefit service
    that he also contends that he accrued.                          Vendura points out that
    the second half of subsection (b) provides that "service credit
    shall   be    limited         to    a     maximum      of   twelve   months     unless   the
    Participant has met the eligibility requirements for receiving
    3
    As defendants point out, the District Court made no
    finding   on    whether  Vendura   in  fact   received  workers'
    compensation benefits.
    - 12 -
    long    term       disability         benefits         (whether     or    not        he    actually
    receives such benefits)" (emphasis added).                              He also points out
    that this highlighted language places no temporal limit on a
    participant's right to accrue years of benefit service beyond
    the    temporal      limit      on    the     participant's         eligibility            for    the
    long-term      disability         benefits        themselves.             Vendura         therefore
    argues       that    the       trailing      language        in     the    second          half    of
    subsection (b) sets forth a separate entitlement to accrue years
    of benefit service based on eligibility for long-term disability
    that    is    distinct         from    the    entitlement          to     years       of    benefit
    service based on receipt of workers' compensation that is set
    forth in the first half of subsection (b).                                 And because his
    eligibility         for    long-term        disability       benefits          did    not    expire
    until February of 2013, Vendura contends that subsection (b)
    entitles him to accrue years of benefit service for the whole of
    that time.
    B.
    The    Administrative              Committee        counters          Vendura       by
    pointing out that subsection (b) is not the only subsection that
    addresses      a     participant's           right      to   accrue       years       of    benefit
    service on the basis of eligibility for long-term disability
    benefits.       In fact, the very next provision in Section 2.2 --
    subsection      (c)       --   does    so    as    well.          And    the    Administrative
    Committee points to that provision -- and the sixty-month cap on
    - 13 -
    the accrual of years of benefit service that it contains -- in
    offering its competing interpretation of the trailing language
    in    the   second   half   of    subsection    (b)    and   how     that   language
    relates to subsection (c).
    Specifically, in its June 2013 letter to Vendura, the
    Administrative Committee described its view of the relationship
    between     subsections     (b)    and   (c),   and    how    they    apply    to   a
    participant like Vendura, as follows:
    [I]f   a    participant    receives    workers'
    compensation    and    long-term     disability
    benefits concurrently, his benefit service
    is based on the period during which he
    received   long-term     disability    benefits
    (subject   to    the    60-month    limit   [in
    subsection (c)] described above).       In your
    case, you received long-term disability
    benefits once your leave of absence began in
    2000.      As    a   result,     any   workers'
    compensation benefits that you received
    during the same period are disregarded under
    the Plan.
    Accordingly, that letter explained, Vendura was subject to the
    sixty-month cap on the accrual of years of benefit service in
    the    amended   subsection       (c).     And,   in    a    later    letter,    the
    Administrative       Committee     elaborated     further      and    noted   that,
    historically,        "[w]hen       a     participant         received       workers'
    compensation and long-term disability benefits concurrently his
    benefit service was always based on the period during which he
    received long-term disability benefits."                    In that letter, the
    Administrative Committee rejected Vendura's contrary contention
    - 14 -
    on the ground that subsection (b) did not create a "loophole"
    that would override the sixty-month cap imposed by subsection
    (c).
    Thus, the Administrative Committee rejects Vendura's
    view that the second half of subsection (b) confers a stand-
    alone right to accrue years of benefit service for as long as a
    participant is eligible for long-term disability benefits to a
    participant who satisfies the condition set forth in the first
    half of subsection (b).        The Administrative Committee instead
    reads the second half of subsection (b) merely to set forth a
    proviso   that    preserves    the     right    of     a    participant       like
    Vendura -- notwithstanding that he may satisfy the condition in
    the first half of subsection (b) -- to accrue years of benefit
    service   in   accord   with   subsection      (c).        The   Administrative
    Committee therefore concluded that the sixty-month cap applies
    to Vendura, and that he is entitled to five years of benefit
    service beyond the seven years that he accrued under subsection
    (a), with the result that he accrued a total of only 12 years of
    benefit service.
    C.
    The   upshot   of   these    dueling       readings    is   that    the
    parties agree that subsection (b)'s twelve-month cap does not
    apply to Vendura, but disagree as to whether subsection (c)'s
    sixty-month cap does.      And so the decisive question on appeal:
    - 15 -
    is the Administrative Committee's competing interpretation of
    subsections (b) and (c), under which the sixty-month cap does
    apply to Vendura, a reasonable one?
    "When interpreting the provisions of an ERISA benefit
    plan, we use federal substantive law including the 'common-sense
    canons of contract interpretation.'"                      Rodriguez-Abreu v. Chase
    Manhattan Bank, N.A., 
    986 F.2d 580
    , 585 (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting
    Bellino v. Schlumberger Techs., Inc., 
    944 F.2d 26
    , 29 (1st Cir.
    1991)).      Here, because the NGSMSC Plan documents provide that
    its provisions are to be construed in accordance with California
    law,    we      also    look     to    California's        principles    of     contract
    interpretation to guide our analysis.                     See Tetreault v. Reliance
    Standard Life Ins. Co., 
    769 F.3d 49
    , 54 (1st Cir. 2014).
    Applying this interpretive approach, we must not view
    in   isolation         the    trailing     words     in   subsection    (b)   on   which
    Vendura's argument hinges.                  And when we consider the text and
    structure of Section 2.2 as a whole, we find strong signals that
    favor     the     Administrative           Committee's     reading.       See      Bowers
    Hydraulic       Dredging       Co.    v.   United     States,   
    211 U.S. 176
    ,   188
    (1908) ("To separate the words [of a phrase] from all the other
    provisions of the contract, in order to give them . . . meaning,
    repugnant to their significance in the contract, would be to
    destroy,        and     not     to    sustain       and    enforce,     the     contract
    requirements."); see also Hunt v. United Bank & Trust Co., 291
    - 16 -
    P. 184, 187 (Cal. 1930) ("[C]ontracts must be construed as a
    whole . . . and the intention of the parties is to be collected
    from the entire instrument and not detached portions thereof, it
    being necessary to consider all of the parts to determine the
    meaning of any particular part as well as of the whole.").
    First, subsection (b) addresses the accrual of years
    of benefit service based on eligibility for long-term disability
    benefits only in the course of setting forth an exception to a
    limitation       on     the     wholly     distinct      entitlement         that    the
    subsection confers -- namely, the right of a participant to
    accrue    twelve        months     of      benefit      service     based     on     the
    participant's absence from work due to a job-related disability
    for    which     that        participant    received       workers'     compensation
    benefits. But an exception to a limitation on that entitlement
    is    hardly    an     obvious    place     to    locate      the   wholly    distinct
    entitlement       to    accrue     years     of     benefit     service      based    on
    eligibility for long-term disability benefits.                      Subsection (c),
    by contrast, is quite direct in providing the entitlement to
    accrue years of benefit service on that basis.                      It thus is quite
    a natural place for such a stand-alone entitlement to appear.
    Second, no other provision in Section 2.2 sets forth
    an    entitlement       to    accrue     years    of   benefit      service    in    the
    backhanded manner posited by Vendura's reading of the last half
    of    subsection       (b).      Rather,     just      like   the    first    half    of
    - 17 -
    subsection       (b)   and   subsection     (c),   every   other     provision   in
    Section 2.2 sets out the criteria for the entitlement to accrue
    years of benefit service in the first sentence of the provision.4
    See, e.g., Penncro Assocs., Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 
    499 F.3d 1151
    ,      1155–56    (10th   Cir.   2007)    ("When    a    contract   uses
    different        language    in   proximate    and   similar       provisions,   we
    commonly understand the provisions to illuminate one another and
    assume that the parties' use of different language was intended
    to convey different meanings."); Taracorp, Inc. v. NL Indus.,
    Inc., 
    73 F.3d 738
    , 744 (7th Cir. 1996) ("[W]hen parties to the
    same contract use such different language to address parallel
    issues . . . it is reasonable to infer that they intend this
    language to mean different things.").
    Third, unlike the trailing language of the second half
    of subsection (b), subsection (c) sets forth the kind of precise
    and administrable definition of an entitlement that one would
    expect a provision conferring an entitlement to provide.                         By
    contrast, the trailing language in the second half of subsection
    (b) does not specify the long-term disability benefits to which
    it refers.         That lack of specificity is curious if the second
    4
    The one subsection that contains multiple independent
    entitlements, Section 2.2(f), sets them apart with Roman
    numerals. The lack of Roman numerals before the second half of
    subsection (b) thus provides further evidence that the second
    half of that subsection was not intended to confer an
    independent entitlement.
    - 18 -
    half of subsection (b) is intended to set forth an entitlement
    to   accrue      years      of   benefit       service    on     the      basis    of     such
    benefits.         By     contrast,       the     lack     of   specificity          is     not
    surprising if the second half of subsection (b) merely clarifies
    that    those    participants       entitled       to    accrue      twelve       months    of
    benefit service based on their receipt of workman's compensation
    for an on-the-job injury may also be able to claim sixty months
    of benefit service pursuant to the very next subsection.                                 Thus,
    the fact that subsection (c) contains a specific reference to
    those "long-term disability benefits under any plan maintained
    by a member of the Controlled Group," and that the trailing
    language in the second half of subsection (b) does not, supports
    the Administrative Committee's conclusion.
    Fourth, subsection (c), by its terms, does not purport
    to set forth an entitlement to accrue years of benefit service
    based    on     eligibility      for    long-term        disability        benefits       that
    would     not    apply      to    Vendura.       Instead,      the     terms       of     that
    subsection describe participants who may accrue years of benefit
    service    based       on   their      eligibility       for   long-term          disability
    benefits without regard to whether the disability arose from a
    work-related       injury        and     without        regard       to     whether        the
    participant       received       workers'      compensation       in      consequence       of
    that injury.
    - 19 -
    Finally, in addition to these textual and structural
    reasons for finding the Administrative Committee's reading to be
    a reasonable one, there is the pre-amendment history of Section
    2.2.     Prior to the amendment to subsection (c), there was no
    temporal cap under subsection (c).                      Thus, the following oddity
    would have arisen if the trailing language of the second half of
    subsection (b) set forth a stand-alone entitlement.                           Rather than
    merely     having        helpfully      clarified       the       availability     of    the
    entitlement specifically provided for in subsection (c), that
    portion    of      subsection     (b)    also     would    have      superfluously       set
    forth that very same entitlement.                       The longstanding principle
    against reading plan terms to be superfluous, therefore, points
    against    investing        the   last    half     of     subsection       (b)    with   the
    greater substance that Vendura contends must be attributed to
    it.    Cf. Bouchard v. Crystal Coin Shop, Inc., 
    843 F.2d 10
    , 13–14
    (1st Cir. 1988) ("Where the trustees of a plan . . . by their
    interpretation render some provisions of the plan superfluous,
    their actions may well be found to be arbitrary and capricious."
    (quoting Miles v. N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret.
    Fund   Emp.     Pension     Benefit      Plan,    
    698 F.2d 593
    ,   599    (2d    Cir.
    1983))).
    To    be    sure,      there   is     now       a    temporal      cap    under
    subsection (c).           But, in light of the text and structure of the
    two subsections that we have just reviewed, the Administrative
    - 20 -
    Committee reasonably concluded that the imposition of the sixty-
    month cap in subsection (c) did not provide -- for the first
    time -- that those participants who are eligible for long-term
    disability benefits and who had previously been eligible for
    workers' compensation would be entitled to accrue more years of
    benefit service than any other participants who were entitled to
    accrue years of benefits services based on their eligibility for
    long-term disability benefits.          See, e.g., Diaz v. Seafarers
    Int'l Union, 
    13 F.3d 454
    , 457–58 (1st Cir. 1994) (considering
    the argument that a later version of a plan document shed light
    on whether an earlier version conferred the power to interpret
    pension eligibility rules); Kammerer v. Motion Picture Indus.
    Pension Plan, 
    487 F. App'x 597
    , 599 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding that
    when the current version of a plan did not define a relevant
    term, the plan administrator's use of a particular rule was
    supported by that rule's consistency with at least three earlier
    versions of the plan).        And so while the relevant provisions of
    Section   2.2   certainly     could   have   been   clearer     --    say,   by
    expressly cross-referencing subsection (c) in subsection (b) --
    we   conclude    that   the     Administrative      Committee        reasonably
    construed the provisions to subject Vendura to the sixty-month
    cap in subsection (c).
    - 21 -
    IV.
    The final issue concerns whether Vendura is entitled
    to elect a lump-sum payment of his pension benefits.                                 Under
    Section 5.5 of the TRW Plan, which the NGSMSC Plan incorporates
    for a participant like Vendura, a participant may elect a lump-
    sum payment so long as "he files a written application therefor
    while    an    Employee       still    accruing         Service     during    the    three
    calendar      month    period     immediately           preceding       his   Retirement
    Date."      Vendura requested a lump-sum distribution in 2013.                         As a
    result, the question of whether Vendura is entitled to a lump-
    sum distribution is fully answered by considering whether he was
    still accruing benefit service in 2013.                          Because we hold that
    the Administrative Committee reasonably determined that Vendura
    was   not     accruing    years       of   benefit      service     under     either    the
    settlement agreement or the Plan in 2013, in consequence of the
    sixty-month      cap     in    subsection         (c)     that    the    Administrative
    Committee       reasonably        construed          to     apply       to    him,      the
    Administrative Committee also reasonably determined that Vendura
    was not entitled to elect a lump-sum distribution at that time.
    V.
    For these reasons, the judgment of the District Court
    is affirmed.
    - 22 -