Tenth Circuit Affirms Major ERISA Pension Victory for Boilermaker Retirees
Appellate decision upholds early-retirement benefits, rejects statute-of-limitations defense, and revives fiduciary-duty claims for class members.
On September 29, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a published decision in favor of Boilermaker retirees represented by Martin & Bonnett, PLLC in Phillips v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust.
The decision is an important victory not only for the retirees in this case, but for employees and retirees whose pension benefits are denied, suspended, reduced, or recouped based on restrictions that do not appear in their pension plan documents.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Boilermaker retirees on their claims for pension benefits and rejected the Pension Trust’s argument that many of those claims were filed too late. The Court also ruled for the retirees on their cross-appeal, reversing judgment against retirees whose ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims had previously been dismissed as untimely. The case will now return to the United States District Court for further proceedings on those claims.
The appellate victory follows a 2025 district court judgment that ordered the Boilermaker Pension Trust to pay more than $26 million to class members and provide additional relief.
The Pension Trust Applied a Rule That Was Not in the Plan
The case arose from the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust’s treatment of workers who retired before normal retirement age and later performed work for employers that contributed to the Pension Trust.
Beginning in 2010, the Trust began applying what it called a “separation from service” rule. Under that rule, retirees could lose their early-retirement benefits if they worked for a contributing employer—even when the retiree was not performing the type of Boilermaker work prohibited by the actual pension plan. Plaintiffs contended that this broader restriction was not contained in the governing Plan.
The distinction had enormous consequences. Some retirees had their pension benefits terminated years after they retired. Some faced efforts to recoup previously paid benefits. The appellate record described class members who had 25% or even 100% of their monthly pension benefits withheld.
The retirees challenged those practices under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known as ERISA.
The Tenth Circuit: The Plan Says What It Says
The Pension Trust argued that an early retiree had to stop all work for any employer contributing to the Pension Trust.
The Tenth Circuit rejected that position.
The Court held that the pension plan disqualified retirees based on particular types of work identified in the Plan—not simply because the retiree accepted a job with an employer that happened to contribute to the Pension Trust. As the Court explained, there was “nothing” in the Plan making a Boilermaker ineligible for early-retirement benefits merely because the individual worked for a contributing employer.
That ruling matters well beyond this particular dispute.
ERISA plan administrators frequently receive substantial discretion to interpret pension and benefit plans. But discretion does not give a plan administrator authority to rewrite the plan. The Tenth Circuit emphasized that an administrator’s interpretation is arbitrary and capricious when it conflicts with unambiguous plan language.
For retirees, that means the actual written plan matters. A pension fund, employer, benefits committee, or insurer cannot simply impose a more restrictive rule because it believes that rule would be preferable.
A Pension Plan Cannot Hide the Deadline to Sue and Then Invoke It
The Tenth Circuit also rejected the Pension Trust’s attempt to bar many retirees’ claims under a two-year contractual limitations period.
The reason was straightforward: the initial benefit-denial letters did not tell retirees that the two-year deadline existed.
The Court noted that the Plan administrator denied the initial claims of Boilermakers without telling them how long they had to file a civil action. Under federal ERISA claims regulations, adverse benefit determinations must provide participants important information concerning the procedures and time limits for challenging the denial.
A plan should not be able to omit a critical deadline from a benefit denial and later use that undisclosed deadline to defeat the participant’s case.
That holding can be particularly important to workers who believe an old pension or ERISA claim is no longer worth investigating. A denial that occurred years ago is not necessarily the end of the analysis. The language of the plan, the contents of the denial letter, the administrative appeal, and what the participant was actually told can all matter.
The Court Also Revived Breach-of-Fiduciary-Duty Claims
Martin & Bonnett a did not simply defend the district court victory. Plaintiffs also filed their own cross-appeal challenging the dismissal of fiduciary-duty claims belonging to retirees.
They won that issue as well.
ERISA provides a three-year limitations period in certain fiduciary-duty cases once a plaintiff has “actual knowledge” of the breach. The district court had treated the retirees’ benefit denials as sufficient to start that clock.
The Tenth Circuit disagreed.
The alleged fiduciary breach involved more than the denial itself. Plaintiffs alleged misleading statements concealing the imposition of a new unwritten retirement requirement. The Court therefore held that simply showing that a retiree could have discovered the issue was insufficient. ERISA requires actual knowledge, not merely the ability to discover the violation.
That ruling reversed summary judgment against retirees and returned their fiduciary-duty claims to the district court.
More reprorting on this substantial victory for retirees can be found below:
What This Decision Means for Other Retirees
This case illustrates why retirees should not assume that a pension plan’s decision is correct simply because it came from a plan administrator or board of trustees.
Potential ERISA issues may exist when a pension plan has suspended or terminated benefits after a retiree returned to work; demanded repayment of pension benefits already paid; relied on a retirement restriction that cannot be found in the governing plan document; changed its explanation during the claim and appeal process; failed to explain the deadline for filing a lawsuit; or told a participant that a claim is “too late” even though the participant did not know the facts underlying the violation.
Those issues can arise in multiemployer pension plans, union pension plans, traditional defined-benefit plans, and employer-sponsored retirement plans throughout the country.
Martin & Bonnett Litigates Pension and ERISA Cases Nationwide
For more than three decades, Martin & Bonnett has represented employees and retirees in significant ERISA and pension litigation throughout the United States, including nationwide class actions involving pension benefit reductions, unlawful suspensions, benefit calculations, plan amendments, fiduciary breaches, and attempts to recover alleged pension overpayments.
Phillips also reflects how we approach these cases.
We do not assume that a pension plan’s interpretation is correct because it has been repeated for years. We examine the governing plan language, prior versions of the plan, amendments, summary plan descriptions, administrative records, internal communications, and the explanations actually provided to participants. And when necessary, we are prepared to litigate those issues through discovery, trial-court proceedings, and appeal.
Here, that work resulted in a district court judgment providing substantial relief to Boilermaker retirees and, after the Pension Trust appealed, a published federal appellate decision affirming the retirees’ right to benefits and expanding the claims that may proceed against the defendants.
Were Your Pension Benefits Denied, Suspended, or Reduced?
If your employer or pension plan has denied pension benefits, suspended retirement benefits because you returned to work, demanded repayment of pension benefits, reduced benefits under a new interpretation of your plan, or told you that it is too late to challenge a denial, you may want to have the decision independently reviewed.
Martin & Bonnett represents pension plan participants and retirees throughout the United States in individual and class-action ERISA cases.
You can contact Martin & Bonnett at (602) 240-6900 or info@martinbonnett.com to discuss your pension rights. The firm maintains offices in Phoenix and Seattle and handles pension and ERISA litigation nationwide. Martin & Bonnett PLLC
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.