both plans.



        Between 1984 and 1987 ARCO consolidated and reorganized its operations by selling assets

and divisions. In May of 1986 ARCO amended the ARRP to add section 35, which provided for

special enhanced retirement benefits. A plan member was eligible for these benefits if the member

was notified by ARCO between May 6, 1986, and January 31, 1987, that "he or she will be

terminated from employment due to the continuing consolidation of [ARCO], with a termination date

on or before December 31, 1989, as determined by [ARCO]." If an ARRP member was eligible for

special enhanced retirement benefits under section 35, the member's retirement benefits were

enhanced by adding five years to the employee's period of service for calculating benefit vesting,

eligibility and accrual; by adding fivecourt was in the unenviable position

of continually being asked to review an administrative record that was in a state of flux. After ARCO

filed its first motion for summary judgment in March of 1989, plaintiffs raised facts in opposition that

they had not presented to the ARRP committee. The parties agreed temporarily to stay the litigation

so that plaintiffs could obtain and present new evidence to the ARRP and STAP committees, and the

district court granted several stays to allow the committees to reconsider the plaintiffs' claims in light

of this evidence.



          During the second phase of administrative review plaintiffs presented evidence intended to

show that when ARCO sold other divisions it had considered employees who continued working in

the sold divisions as terminated from employment