UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ DEREK KRAMER, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │ > No. 24-3174 v. │ │ AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER EXECUTIVE │ SEVERANCE PLAN; AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER │ SERVICE CORPORATION, │ │ Defendants-Appellees. ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 2:21-cv-05501—Sarah Daggett Morrison, Chief District Judge.

Argued: October 31, 2024

Decided and Filed: February 10, 2025

Before: COLE, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Tony C. Merry, LAW OFFICES OF TONY C. MERRY, LLC, Worthington, Ohio, for Appellant. Jason T. Gerken, PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Tony C. Merry, LAW OFFICES OF TONY C. MERRY, LLC, Worthington, Ohio, for Appellant. Jason T. Gerken, PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. Christopher J. Rillo, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae. _________________

OPINION _________________

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. This case looks like a standard claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) to recover benefits. But Derek Kramer wants to No. 24-3174 Kramer v. Am. Electric Power Exec. Severance Plan Page 2

change the rules for these claims. Kramer believes he has a right to “full discovery,” including documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, rather than an adjudication based on the administrative record. Kramer also thinks he has a constitutional right to a jury trial for his ERISA claim. And he seeks to apply a different standard to adjudicate his claim than the one we instructed district courts to use more than two decades ago. We reject Kramer’s request to change the rules.

On the merits, Kramer has not shown that the district court erred in finding that the decision denying Kramer benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. We thus affirm.

I.

In 2018, Kramer joined American Electric Power Service Corporation (“AEP”) as the vice president and chief digital officer of AEP Charge, the company’s new “innovation hub.” R. 21–1, PageID 139. Almost a year after hiring him, AEP offered Kramer the option to participate in the AEP Executive Severance Plan (the “Plan”). He accepted. The Plan provides eligible employees a severance payment based on their base salary and performance “due to an Involuntary Termination or a Good Reason Resignation.” Id. at 155.

In 2020, the company terminated Kramer’s employment. Two events led to that decision.

First, during an annual audit, AEP’s audit services department found that Kramer’s executive assistant charged personal expenses to her company credit card in violation of corporate policy. Audit department representatives called Kramer to discuss the charges. Kramer followed up the same day to confirm that he spoke with his assistant and warned her about charging personal expenses to her company credit card. In th