Cinotto v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 674 F.3d 1285

Cinotto, a Delta flight attendant, is a participant in Delta's Family-Care Retirement Plan, which uses a Social Security offset in its defined-benefit formula; the earliest retirement age is 52.
The Plan defines accrued benefit as a monthly amount payable from a Normal Retirement Date, with no accrual based on future service or earnings.
Amendment Seven (Dec. 31, 2005) froze benefits and altered the Social Security offset for under-52s as of that date, maintaining a no-income offset for those 52 or older as of June 30, 2003.
Amendment Eight (Mar. 31, 2007) further changed the Social Security offset for participants under 52 as of its enactment date, removing the favorable offset by requiring an offset based on 2003 Level Pay to age 65.
Cinotto was under 52 on Mar. 31, 2007 and remained employed; she alleged Amendment Eight violated ERISA’s anti-cutback rule by reducing accrued benefits.
The district court dismissed Cinotto’s claim, holding Amendment Eight affected only future accruals and did not reduce an accrued benefit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment Eight violates ERISA’s anti-cutback rule	Cinotto; Amendment Eight reduces accrued benefits	Delta; amendment affects only future accruals for under-52s	Amendment Eight does not violate the anti-cutback rule

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739 (2004) (accrual vs. future accrual; change to terms of compensation for continued employment)
Gilley v. Monsanto Co., 490 F.3d 848 (2007) (distinguishes accrual from vesting; not a cutback on accrued benefits)
Blessitt v. Retirement Plan for Employees of Dixie Engine Co., 848 F.2d 1164 (1988) (accrued benefits vs. anticipated future years of service; termination context)
Blank v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 926 F.2d 1090 (1991) (accrued benefits vs. future service; accrual not present when conditions not met)