CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ANDRE DESCHAMPS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDING, INC.; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants
   No. 15-6112
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:12-cv-00086—Kevin H. Sharp, Chief District Judge.
Argued: July 28, 2016
Decided and Filed: September 12, 2016
Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and COOK; Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. After working for ten years at a Bridgestone plant in Canada, Andre Deschamps transferred to a Bridgestone facility in the United States. Prior to accepting this position he expressed concern about losing pension credit for his ten years of employment in Canada. But upon receiving assurances from members of Bridgestone’s management team that he would keep his ten years of pension credit, Deschamps accepted the position. For over a decade, Deschamps received various written materials confirming that his date of service for pension purposes would be August 8, 1983. He even turned down employment opportunities from a competitor at a higher salary because of the purportedly higher pension benefits he would receive at Bridgestone. In 2010, Deschamps discovered that Bridgestone had changed his service date to August 1, 1993, the date he began working at the American plant. After failed attempts to appeal this change through Bridgestone’s internal procedures, Deschamps brought a suit against Bridgestone alleging claims of equitable estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and an anti-cutback violation of ERISA. The district court granted summary judgment for Deschamps on these three claims. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.