Fetty v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 104 F.3d 367 (10th Cir. 1996)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^* 

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's February 20, 1996 Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the determination of defendant Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") and dismissing plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs contend that PBGC's decision to deny early retirement benefits under the terminated retirement plan of their former employer was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

PBGC's interpretation and application of its own regulation is entitled to substantial deference. PBGC's determination must be upheld unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (a). We must render an independent decision and apply the same standard of review as the district court. Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560, 1580 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review we evaluate "whether the agency examined the relevant data and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made." Olenhouse, 42 F.3d at 1574 (citation omitted).

We agree with the district court that PBGC correctly interpreted applicable law in its decision to deny plaintiffs' applications for 70/80 and Rule-of-65 benefits under the Plan. PBGC's action was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Plaintiffs had not suffered a break in continuous service by reason of a layoff as of the Plan termination date. See 29 C.F.R. § 2613.3 We reject plaintiffs' attempt to equate "layoff" in sections 5.06 and 5.07 of the Plan with "retirement" in 29 C.F.R. § 2613.6. Therefore, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the district court.