Thomas v. Silgan Containers Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 9039 (9^th Cir. May 3, 2000) (unpublished)-This court reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment against Thomas.  Thomas claimed entitlement to severance claiming that Silgan terminated him because of a "job elimination." Silgan denied there was any "job elimination," but nowhere did the plan define that term adequately.  Mr. Thomas presented evidence that several weeks after his termination, another employee took over Thomas' duties.  However Silgan gave the employer a different title (suggesting elimination of the previous position.)  Additionally, the record showed that a Silgan employee had called Thomas' termination a "job elimination."  Finally, Thomas showed that Silgan "actively withheld" disclosure of plan documents before his termination.

This court found that a conflict of interest justified less deference to Silgan's decision.  Because Silgan both issued and administered the policy, there was an "inherent" conflict of interest.  However, citing Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1322 (9^th Cir. 1995), the district court found an additional requirement that the beneficiary must put forth "material, probative evidence, beyond the mere fact of the apparent conflict, tending to show that the fiduciary's self-interest caused a breach of the administrator's fiduciary obligations to the beneficiary."  This court felt that Silgan's "inconsistent explanations" and  "procedural irregularities" constituted such evidence. 

Silgan then bore the burden of showing that the conflict of interest did not affect its decision—which this court found that the company failed to show.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court with instructions to review de novo.