Plan grants the Administrator deference and that deference was clearly used in reaching the benefit determination challenged here. Thus, the logic of Firestone favors a “clearly erroneous” standard of review. In determining this, the Court is also mindful of both published and unpublished cases of the Sixth Circuit which have applied the Firestone standard of review to plan interpretation questions made under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3). See Hunter v. Caliber System, Inc., 220 F.3d 702, 711 (6th Cir.2000) (finding as to § 1132(a)(1)(B) claim that “this case is about benefits, and Firestone requires application of the arbitrary and capricious standard if required by the language of the plan”); Bd. of Admin, v. Huntsman, 187 F.3d 634, 1999 WL 591458, at *3 (6th Cir. July 27, 1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Paramore v. Delta Air Lines, 129
holding that the question of causation in a prima facie case of retaliation brought under general statutes  46a60 is factual in nature and thereby subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review holding that claim brought under section 1132a3 was subject to clearly erroneous review under firestone holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard