The Ninth Circuit recently considered an appeal from a summary judgment motion granted against “the Last Rosie the Riveter” in a pension dispute.  Elinor Otto, 96, went to work on an airplane assembly line in the early 1940’s.  In 1965, she began work for McDonnell Douglas, which later became Boeing – her employer for nearly 50 years.  Otto argued that Boeing did not provide her with proper accrued benefits, namely, a formula calculated by multiplying years of service by an increasing pension rate.  The 9th Circuit held that because the terms of the plan do not clearly require the accrued benefits that Otto claimed, the administrator’s decision to deny Otto the claimed benefits should be upheld.  Under 9th Circuit case law, a plan administrator’s decision to deny benefits must be upheld under a heightened standard of review where the terms of the plan are ambiguous, provided the decision is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the plan’s terms and it was made in good faith.  The case is Otto v. Employee Retirement Income Plan-Hourly West, 15-55987 (9th Circ.).