ROBERT A. WATT; GARY J. FRIESEN; MICHAEL H. MCKENNA; GEOFFREY B. COE; CRAIG A. COVIC, v. FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ PENSION PLAN; RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD OF FEDEX CORPORATION; JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10 - Articles

All Content

ROBERT A. WATT; GARY J. FRIESEN; MICHAEL H. MCKENNA; GEOFFREY B. COE; CRAIG A. COVIC, v. FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ PENSION PLAN; RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD OF FEDEX CORPORATION; JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 16, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Louis M. Bograd, MOTLEY RICE, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Louis M. Bograd, MOTLEY RICE, LLC, Washington, D.C., Douglas P. Needham, Mathew P. Jasinski, M. Zane Johnson, MOTLEY RICE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, Oren Faircloth, Lisa R. Considine, SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP, New York, New York, Robert A. Izard, IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP, West Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Jared R. Killeen, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Matthew A. Russell, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Terrence O. Reed, Joseph B. Reafsnyder, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Memphis, Tennessee, Michael E. Kenneally, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., 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 Western District of Tennessee at Memphis

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 Plaintiffs, each of whom are married participants in employee pension plans, alleged that their plans used outdated mortality data to calculate their benefits, which improperly decreased those benefits in violation of ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirement.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: