SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen denied former executive Poppi Metaxas's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, reaffirming a summary judgment that excluded about $0.29 million in annual Bank-Owned Life Insurance premiums from her salary rate under Gateway Bank's supplemental retirement plan.
The dispute centered on whether the bank's annual premium payments on a BOLI policy constituted "amounts deferred" from Metaxas's salary, a determination that would have significantly increased her monthly termination benefits.
In a March 10 order, the court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plan's administrative committee did not act unreasonably by calculating benefits based on Metaxas's $0.33 million base salary while excluding the BOLI premiums.
Metaxas argued that the court manifestly failed to consider two pieces of evidence: a 2008 plan amendment intended to comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A and a 2010 FICA tax ledger showing a $36,116 withholding.
The court rejected the argument regarding the 2008 amendment, noting that the document expressly stated it did not constitute a material modification of the original plan and did not redefine "salary rate."
"Nothing contained herein is considered by the Plan Sponsor to constitute a material modification of the original Plan," the court quoted from the amendment, adding that the text listed specific definitions being replaced, none of which included "salary rate."
Regarding the FICA ledger, the court found that Metaxas's characterization of the account as proof of deferred wages was based on speculation rather than documentary evidence.
The ledger screenshot did not identify Metaxas by name, state that the balance pertained to her participation, or contain the words "FICA," "payroll," or "withholding," the court noted.
Metaxas's attempt to "reverse engineer" her benefit calculation balance was deemed unconvincing and lacking probative value, echoing the court's earlier rejection of similar arguments based on internal accounting ledgers.
The court emphasized that a tax or accounting characterization does not establish the contractual meaning of "salary rate" under the plan contrary to its plain language.
Metaxas, who sought to include the premiums to boost her monthly benefit from about $9,250 to about $19,600, now faces a final judgment based on the lower calculation.