Frommert v. Conkright, 913 F.3d 101

Plaintiffs are Xerox employees who took lump-sum pension distributions in the 1980s, were later rehired, and dispute how prior distributions should be accounted for so as to avoid double recovery.
The Plan Administrator used an offset method to account for prior lump-sum distributions when calculating post‑rehire benefits; plaintiffs challenged that method under ERISA notice and plan‑interpretation principles.
This litigation produced multiple appeals: district court rulings, panel decisions (Frommert I & II), and the Supreme Court’s reversal in Conkright v. Frommert, which required deference to the Plan Administrator’s interpretation under certain circumstances.
In Frommert III the Second Circuit held the Plan Administrator’s calculation was an unreasonable interpretation and that plan documents violated ERISA notice rules; it remanded for the district court to fashion an equitable remedy if appropriate.
On remand the district court reformed the plan and adopted a “new hire” equitable remedy (treat returnees as newly hired with no offset) to calculate New Benefits, and awarded prejudgment interest at the federal prime rate (3.5%).
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the new hire remedy and the chosen prejudgment interest rate were inadequate; the Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of the "new hire" equitable remedy	New hire remedy understates plaintiffs’ entitlements; court should award a more favorable calculation	New hire remedy appropriately balances over‑ and under‑compensation and accounts for time value of money	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in selecting new hire remedy as equitable relief
Whether court was required to interpret the Plan after remand	Court should interpret Plan to secure higher benefits	Court may, per Frommert III, craft equitable relief without plan interpretation	Held for defendant: district court permissibly reformed the plan and avoided further plan interpretation
Consideration of alternative equitable remedies (surcharge/estoppel)	District court should have applied surcharge or estoppel to increase recovery	District court reasonably found those remedies unnecessary given reformation	Held: no abuse of discretion in declining surcharge/estoppel after adopting reformation/new hire remedy
Prejudgment interest rate selection	Plaintiffs: New York statutory 9% rate is appropriate	Defendants: federal post‑judgment rate (~0.66%) is appropriate	Affirmed: district court acted within discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at federal prime rate (3.5%)

Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (deference principles to plan administrator interpretations)
Frommert v. Conkright, 738 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 2013) (Frommert III) (Plan offset method unreasonable; remand to craft equitable remedy)
Frommert v. Conkright, 433 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2006) (Frommert I) (earlier appellate rulings on methods for accounting prior distributions)
Frommert v. Conkright, 535 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008) (Frommert II) (review of district court’s benefit calculations and discretion to defer to plan admin)
Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 563 U.S. 421 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (equitable reformation and remedies for misleading plan communications)
Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc., 862 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2017) (permitting plan reformation to reflect representations to employees)
Jones v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 223 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2000) (factors governing prejudgment interest awards)
Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, IBEW, 955 F.2d 831 (2d Cir. 1992) (prejudgment interest must not over‑compensate plaintiff)
Chao v. Merino, 452 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for ERISA equitable remedies)
Testa v. Becker, 910 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2018) (discussion of methods for accounting prior lump‑sum distributions)