Downs v. World Color Press, 214 F.3d 802 (7^th Cir. 2000)-This court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against Downs on his claim that oral and written representations to him by company officials entitled him to greater retirement benefits.  In 1987, Downs transferred between divisions of World Color Press.  Although each division maintained separate pension plans for its respective employees, Downs claimed that World Color Press promised him that the credits from his tenure in his former division would transfer to his new plan in the new division.

            This court pointed out that ERISA does not allow for oral modifications.  As for the alleged written representations, they did not constitute valid written modifications of the ERISA plan, since a plan sponsor may amend a plan only pursuant to its express terms.  Here, the "written representations" apparently constituted nothing more than the fact that his employment commencement date had been filled in as 1975, instead of 1987, when he transferred to the new division.  World Color attributed this to an "administrative mistake."  However, Downs "does not argue, much less establish, that the World Color Press Board of Directors ratified any plan modification that would entitle him to additional benefits."

           Lastly, Downs' estoppel argument failed to satisfy the elements of estoppel:  "(1) knowing misrepresentation by the defendant; (2) in writing; (3) with reasonable reliance by the plaintiff on the misrepresentation; (4) to the plaintiff's detriment."  The court noted that, in Black v. TIC Investment Corp., 900 F.2d 112, 115 (7^th Cir. 1990), it "held that estoppel applies to unfunded, single-employer welfare benefit plans, but since Black, we have repeatedly declined to decide whether estoppel might apply to an employer-funded, defined-benefit plan such as we have here."  This court found no occasion  to answer that question since Downs failed to establish the elements of estoppel.