Whittaker v. Bellsouth Communications Inc. Career Alternative Plan for Management Employees, 206 F 3d. 532 (5^th Cir. 2000)-Whittaker claimed that his former employer wrongly denied him benefits from the Career Alternative Plan ("CAP").  The CAP, an ERISA-governed plan, provided a separation benefit for eligible management employees who voluntarily separate employment for the purpose of pursuing education, teaching, or community service opportunities for a period not to exceed three years.  When Whittaker inquired about taking his sabbatical under the CAP, his supervisors allegedly denied the claim on the basis they would be unable to fill his job position.  Whether this constituted an actual, yet informal, denial (and whether his later written request was therefore an appeal) was an issue of contention.  Regardless, during the pending of the request, Whittaker accepted benefits from defendant’s Discretionary Termination Allowance Plan ("DTAP").  The DTAP contained an agreement to waive, discharge, and release all claims against BST.  This court upheld that release.

This court found that the CAP plan gave the plan administrator discretionary authority to interpret plan terms in explicit language ("sole and complete discretionary authority".)  Therefore the abuse of discretion standard was applicable. In applying this standard, this court inquired whether the plan administrator's interpretation was "legally correct."  Citing Wildbur v. ARCO Chemical Co., 974 F.2d 631, 637 (5^th Cir. 1992), this court stated that: "in determining whether the plan administrator's interpretation of the plan was legally correct a court must consider: 1) whether the administrator gave the plan a uniform construction, 2) whether the interpretation is consistent with a fair reading of the plan, and 3) any unanticipated costs resulting from different interpretations of the plan."  Applying those factors to Whittaker's case, the administrator's decision was not an abuse of discretion.