THOMAS N. REICHERT; STUART R. BUCK; KENNETH A. HENRICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KELLOGG COMPANY, et al., BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS PENSION COMMITTEE; KELLANOVA, fka Kellogg Company; WK KELLOGG COMPANY; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF KELLANOVA PENSION PLAN; JOHN DOES 1–20 - Articles

All Content

THOMAS N. REICHERT; STUART R. BUCK; KENNETH A. HENRICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KELLOGG COMPANY, et al., BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS PENSION COMMITTEE; KELLANOVA, fka Kellogg Company; WK KELLOGG COMPANY; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF KELLANOVA PENSION PLAN; JOHN DOES 1–20

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 16, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Rachana Pathak, STRIS & MAHER LLP, Cerritos, California, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Joseph J. Torres, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Rachana Pathak, Peter K. Stris, Douglas D. Geyser, STRIS & MAHER LLP, Cerritos, California, Oren Faircloth, Lisa R. Considine, David J. DiSabato, SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Joseph J. Torres, Alexis E. Bates, Emma O’Connor, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON AMICUS BRIEF : Nancy J. Ross, Michael S. Scodro, Joshua D. Yount, MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): STRANCH, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Retired employees of the Kellogg Company and FedEx Corporation sued their respective employers and pension plans for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs, each of whom are married participants in employee pension plans, alleged that their plans used outdated mortality data to calculate their benefits, which improperly decreased those benefits in violation of ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirement. The district courts dismissed the actions on the ground that ERISA does not require pension plans to use particular mortality tables or actuarial assumptions when calculating benefits for married participants. We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

Attachments: