Bryan Rhode v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10909
____________________
BRYAN RHODE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-00480-MMH-MCR
____________________
Before W ILSON , G RANT, and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-10909 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10909
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Rhode is a former executive-level employee at CSX
Transportation, Inc. (CSX). After CSX denied Rhode’s claim for
severance pay and benefits under the company’s Executive Sever-
ance Plan (the Plan), Rhode brought this action in the Middle Dis-
trict of Florida, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement In-
come Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the district court
concluded that (1) the Plan Administrator had a reasonable basis
for her decision to deny benefits, (2) Rhode received a full and fair
review of his claim, and (3) Rhode failed to establish that any con-
flict of interest tainted the Plan Administrator’s decision so as to
render the decision arbitrary and capricious. The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of CSX.
On appeal, Rhode argues that the Plan Administrator’s de-
nial of his claim based on her determination that he voluntarily re-
signed constituted an abuse of discretion. Rhode contends that he
did not voluntarily resign—rather, he was involuntarily termi-
nated. Second, Rhode argues that the Plan Administrator did not
engage in a full and fair review of the decision to deny his claim
because she failed to review his emails, files, and calendar entries
or interview his colleagues as requested to evaluate whether he in
fact intended to resign from CSX. Finally, Rhode argues that the
district court failed to properly consider the Plan Administrator’s
conflicts of interest in its analysis.
USCA11 Case: 22-10909 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-10909 Opinion of the Court 3
After careful consideration of the record and the parties’
briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of CSX.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-10909 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --