Harte v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 214 F.3d 446 (3^rd Cir. 2000)-Harte sued his former employer, Bethlehem Steel, after it terminated his service nineteen days short of the fifteen years which would make Harte eligible for a pension with greater benefits.  The Bethlehem Plan provided for a break in continuous service two years after active employment ends due to layoff or a disability.  Service does not break if an employee leaves active employment due to a "compensable disability incurred during course of employment."  Harte had been absent from work for two years, and was receiving long-term disability benefits for his cardiac problems.

            This court agreed that the Bethlehem Plan administrator had the authority to make the interpretation that he did and to effect the termination.  However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment.  The court found that a fact finder could find for Harte on a claim of breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § 1104, as well as the "catch-all" provision of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).  Harte needed to show detrimental reliance on inconsistent or confusing statements by a fiduciary.  The Plan had a duty to inform its beneficiaries of the meaning of "compensable disability incurred during course of employment."

Representatives of the Plan had testified that "compensable disability incurred during course of employment" applied only to those disabilities 'where the recipient is getting worker's compensation benefits,' not those in which the employee is compensated by the company."  Apparently, the plan language does not make this distinction.  Citing its decision in In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefit "ERISA" Litig., 57 F.3d 1255, 1264 (1995), this court stated "a misleading statement or omission by a fiduciary is actionable if 'there is a substantial likelihood that it would mislead a reasonable employee in making an adequately informed retirement decision.'"

            In explaining its holding, this court confined its decision to notifications of termination for breaks in service.  This court did not intend to create a "broad fiduciary duty to inform beneficiaries about the effects of all plan provisions upon them," which would put great strain on plan administrators.  In this case, the Plan failed to notify Harte until seven years after the break in service occurred.