Myers-Garrison v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 210 F.3d 425 (5^th Cir. 2000)-Myers-Garrison and other employees of Johnson & Johnson brought a nationwide class action, alleging that Johnson & Johnson reduced their benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), which protects employees from reductions to accrued benefits.  Johnson & Johnson had opted to take advantage of the Retirement Protection Act, passed in 1994, which allowed employers to begin using the "GATT rate" rather than the PBGC rate as their discount rate.  The district court found that the Retirement Protection Act exempted Johnson & Johnson's actions from ERISA's "anti-cutback" rules, and this appeal followed.

This court found that in making the transition to using GATT rates, Johnson & Johnson ran afoul of Treasury regulations concerning which month's GATT rate employers could use. Although the regulations gave Johnson & Johnson several options about which month's rate it could use, Johnson & Johnson chose one that it could not use.

In determining whether this violation actually reduced benefits in violation of IRC §  411(d)(6), this court found that it did as to some of the class members, but not as to some others.  The court remanded for findings as to the rest. In making this decision, this court disagreed with Johnson & Johnson's argument that the rules protecting "accrued benefits" from cutbacks did not cover employees subject to mandatory lump sum plans.