Supreme Court Lets Stand Alternate Definitions for Retirement Age

In July 2009, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that employers had a good deal of leeway in determining the definition of normal retirement age to be used for their plans. The petition for the high court’s review asked it to decide whether the 7th Circuit erred in interpreting ERISA Section 3(24) as unambiguously granting pension plan sponsors discretion to define normal retirement age in terms other than a specific age.

The 7^th Circuit’s decision came in a challenge to Exelon Corp.’s cash balance plan by Thomas Fry who questioned the plan’s normal retirement age definition after getting a lump sum distribution when he left Exelon in 2003 (see Appellate Judges Affirm Years-of-Service Definition for Retirement). Fry contended that the retirement age definition was a way to get around performing a whipsaw calculation when determining an employee’s plan balance for distribution, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).