UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a – 101)

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant x

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Herman Miller, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)  

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

Notice of 2010
Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Proxy Statement

Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

August 31, 2010

Dear Fellow Herman Miller Shareholder,

With all the cutbacks and personal sacrifices of so many people and their families in our fiscal year 2010, we took significant steps to make sure Herman Miller will emerge stronger than ever from the most recent economic downturn. I believe we have come through the worst of it.

As I look back on the last year, I’m pleased that we were able to balance three things—the obligations we have to people who have invested in Herman Miller, keeping the talent we have, and investing in ways that broaden our markets. When we balance all of these things, we are making sure the Herman Miller community will thrive for years to come.

The core of our business continues to focus on serving the furniture needs of U.S. businesses. Over the past five years, however, we have made a deliberate and sustained effort to broaden our mix of customers and channels to market. We have pursued this direction through both internal development and acquisitions. The hard work and sacrifices of our employees enabled us to continue to invest in this long-term direction despite the recent challenging economic environment. 

In June, 2009, we acquired Nemschoff, a $90 million manufacturer of healthcare furniture. In April, 2010, we acquired Colebrook Bosson Saunders, a design leader in ergonomic work tools. As a result, today, nearly 50% of our sales are to hospitals, learning environments, individuals at home, and customers in locations outside the U.S. While this more diverse customer base did not enable us to avoid the negative effects of the global recession, we believe it will provide greater opportunities for recovery and growth.

Our financial position

Notwithstanding the difficult business conditions we faced this fiscal year, our commitment to forward investment and aggressive restructuring paid off in the form of solid financial results. We maintained a robust R&D program by investing $33 million in product development. Over the past four years, our spending in this area has averaged 2.2% of sales. In fiscal 2010, approximately 23% of total revenue was derived from sales of new products introduced over the past four years.

We were aggressive in our efforts to adjust costs in line with business levels, recognizing $17 million in restructuring expenses during the year. As a result, we remained profitable and generated $99 million in cash flow from operations. We also took steps to reduce balance sheet risk by paying down $75 million of outstanding debt and increasing the funded status of our employee retirement obligations.

Despite this and $46 million in cash used for acquisitions, we ended the fiscal year with $147 million in cash and investments. These efforts and the resulting financial performance helped drive a 35% increase in our stock price during the fiscal year.

Other progress

Throughout the downturn, the development of new products has remained a critical element of our business strategy. At the Neocon tradeshow in Chicago in June, we introduced 18 new products and demonstrated in clear and visible ways that Herman Miller is on the march.

Among the most significant areas of change at this year’s show was Herman Miller for Healthcare. When you entered our new dedicated show space, it was clear that we are serious about servicing the needs of healing environments. We have a broad portfolio of capabilities to serve the entire hospital and a new innovation in a product called Compass^TM, which was a highlight of the entire show. And the teamwork between the folks of Herman Miller, Nemschoff, and Brandrud was remarkable.

The Combined Herman Miller and Geiger showroom demonstrated, once again, our ability to deliver innovative products that solve real problems and are simply beautiful. The introduction of new chairs and tables from Geiger shows we can still lead the industry with designs that delight, and our new workstation products proved we can deliver beauty and function better than anyone.

We formally launched the Thrive^TM Portfolio of ergonomic tools and tables. In doing so, we demonstrated that we can and will move quickly to find new areas to serve our traditional customers and dealers. And, our new tables and soft furnishings offered a clear demonstration that we intend to grow our presence in educational settings.

We hosted an invitation-only event to preview a new chair family we believe will set a new reference point for comfort, beauty and value. We plan to launch this chair at Orgatec in Europe this fall.

We became the first company in our industry (and one of the first in the world) to fuel 100% of our facilities with renewable energy. This past year we made significant progress toward our 2020 vision of having zero impact on the environment, and while we still have progress to make, we can see the finish line.

Many groups here continue to create a better world around our neighbors here in West Michigan and elsewhere. From Martin Luther King Day to Habitat houses to Women’s Day, the Herman Miller community truly connects with and improves the communities around us.

Thanks and farewell to Bill Pollard

After serving on our board of directors for 25 years, Bill Pollard, former chairman of ServiceMaster, is retiring.  Bill has been involved in some of the most formative years of Herman Miller, and he has been colleague, advisor, and advocate for our company to five Herman Miller CEOs.  We all thank him for his service and commitment.

1

Updating an interesting story

Two years ago, Herman Miller was one of six companies named to three meaningful lists—Fortune’s “Most Admired,” Fortune’s “100 Best Places to Work,” and Fast Company’s “Most Innovative.” This year, by coincidence, we were also one of only six companies to make all three lists (Fast Company’s list is now expanded to “Innovation All-Stars.”) The other five are Google, Microsoft, Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco.

We must continue to do the things and stand for the things that placed us among such good company. We must continue—as our employees have made it possible for us to do—to move ahead, to progress, to become stronger as a community and a business.

Our business continues to change, we continue to diversify, we continue to look hard at where we are and where we need to go. Our job is to deal with reality—and remain committed and dedicated to creating a prosperous future for Herman Miller. We continue to live the values that have been our guide for almost 100 years.

Whether you are an employee, a customer, a shareholder, or a neighbor, we continue to work for a better world around you. Pursuing that goal is why we come to work and continue to find fulfillment here. 

Sincerely,

Brian C. Walker

President and Chief Executive Officer

2

Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders

The annual meeting of the shareholders of Herman Miller, Inc. (the “Company”), will be held on October 11, 2010, by means of remote communication on the Internet at the Company’s website, www.hermanmiller.com, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) for the following purposes:

Shareholders of record at the close of business on August 13, 2010, will be entitled to vote at the meeting.

Please note that this year’s Annual Meeting will be held via the Internet only. The accompanying proxy materials include instructions on how to participate in the meeting and the means by which you may vote your shares of Company stock.

We encourage you to vote your Proxy, at your earliest convenience, by one of the following means:

By visiting www.proxyvote.com on the Internet

And if you request paper materials
By calling (within the U.S. or Canada) toll free at 1-800-690-6903; or
By signing and returning your Proxy card

You may also vote at the meeting by faxing your Proxy to (616) 654-7218 before the polls are closed during the meeting. Regardless of whether you expect to attend the meeting through the Internet, please vote your shares in one of the ways listed above.

By order of the Board of Directors

Daniel C. Molhoek, Secretary to the Board  August 31, 2010

3  Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Table of Contents

4    2010 Proxy Statement

Herman Miller, Inc.

855 East Main Avenue

PO Box 302

Zeeland, Michigan 49464-0302

Proxy Statement Dated August 31, 2010

This Proxy Statement and the accompanying Proxy, which are being made available to shareholders on or about August 31, 2010, are furnished to the shareholders of Herman Miller, Inc., in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors of proxies to be used at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. This meeting will be held on October 11, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. (EDT). Please note that this year’s Annual Meeting will be held via the Internet rather than in person.

How to Participate in the Electronic Meeting

In order to participate in this year’s Annual Meeting, please log on to www.hermanmiller.com and click on the “About Us” then “For Our Investors” section and the “Annual Meeting Webcast” link at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the 10:00 a.m. meeting to provide time to register and download the required audio software if needed. All shareholders will need to register by entering your name and, if you would like to ask a question during the meeting, you will also need to enter the 12-digit control number received with your Notice or Proxy. Questions that would be appropriate to raise in person and that relate to the purpose of the meeting will be accepted during the meeting. To submit questions, please access the Annual Meeting Webcast and select “Ask a Question.”

Solicitation of Proxies and Voting

Each shareholder, as an owner of the company, is entitled to vote on matters scheduled to come before the annual meeting. The use of proxies allows a shareholder to be represented at the annual meeting if he or she is unable to attend the meeting via the Internet.

You can vote by any of the following methods

If you request paper materials you may also

If your Proxy is properly executed, the shares represented by the Proxy will be voted at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders and at any adjournment of that meeting. Where shareholders specify a choice, the Proxy will be voted as specified. If no choice is specified, the shares represented by the Proxy will be voted for the election of all nominees named in the Proxy and for the proposal described in this Proxy Statement.

A Proxy may be revoked prior to its exercise by (i) delivering a written notice of revocation to the Secretary of the company, (ii) executing and delivering a Proxy at a later date, or (iii) attending the meeting via the Internet and voting via fax. However, attendance at the meeting does not automatically serve to revoke a Proxy.

5    Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Election of Directors

The Board of Directors has nominated Dorothy A. Terrell, David O. Ulrich and Michael A. Volkema for election as directors, each to serve until the 2013 annual meeting. Each of the nominees previously has been elected as a director by our shareholders.

The latter portion of this Proxy Statement contains more information about the nominees. Unless otherwise directed by a shareholder’s proxy, the persons named as proxy voters in the accompanying proxy will vote for the nominees named above. If any of the nominees become unavailable, which is not anticipated, the Board of Directors, at its discretion, may designate substitute nominees, in which event the enclosed proxy will be voted for such substituted nominees. Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of people than the number of nominees named.

A plurality of the votes cast at the meeting is required to elect the nominees as our directors. Accordingly, the three people who receive the largest number of votes cast at the meeting will be elected as directors. Shares not voted at the meeting, whether by abstention, broker non-vote, or otherwise, will not be treated as votes cast at the meeting.

The Board of Directors currently consists of twelve directors, of which ten are independent. In connection with the retirement of C. William Pollard, as of the date of the Annual Meeting, the Board will consist of eleven members. The maximum number of directors for the Board is thirteen. The Amended and Restated Bylaws of Herman Miller, Inc. require that directors shall be divided into three classes, each class to be as nearly equal in number as possible. Each class shall hold office until the third succeeding annual meeting and until their successors shall be duly elected and qualified or until their removal or resignation.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the election of each person nominated by the Board.

Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Our Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (Ernst & Young) as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending May 28, 2011. Representatives of Ernst & Young will be present at the annual meeting of shareholders and available to respond to appropriate questions submitted in advance. The Ernst & Young representatives will have the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire.

Although the submission of this matter for approval by shareholders is not legally required, our Board of Directors believes that such submission follows sound corporate business practice and is in the best interests of our shareholders. If our shareholders do not approve the selection of Ernst & Young, the selection of this firm as our independent registered public accounting firm will be reconsidered by the Audit Committee. This ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on this proposal.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm.

Disclosure of Fees Paid to Independent Auditors

Aggregate fees billed to us for the fiscal years ended May 30, 2009 and May 29, 2010 by our independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young, were as follows:

Our Audit Committee has adopted a policy for pre-approving services performed by Ernst & Young and other firms. This policy requires the Committee’s pre-approval of all services that may be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm and certain audit services provided by other firms. The policy authorizes the committee to delegate to one or more of its members pre-approval authority with respect to permitted services. All of the services provided by Ernst & Young under the captions “Audit Fees,” “Audit Related Fees,” and “Tax Fees” were approved by the Audit Committee under this policy.

6    2010 Proxy Statement

Voting Securities and Principal Shareholders

On August 13, 2010, we had 57,057,503 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, par value $.20 per share. Shareholders are entitled to one vote for each share of common stock registered in their names at the close of business on August 13, 2010, the record date fixed by our Board of Directors. Votes cast at the meeting and submitted by proxy will be tabulated by our transfer agent. As of August 13, 2010, no person was known by management to be the beneficial owner of more than five percent of our common stock, except as follows.

7    Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Director and Executive Officer Information

Security Ownership of Directors

The following table shows, as of August 13, 2010, the number of shares beneficially owned by each of the nominees and directors, except for Brian Walker who is reported in Management Ownership below. Except as described in the notes following the table, the following persons have sole voting and dispositive power as to all of their respective shares.

Security Ownership of Management

The following table shows, as of August 13, 2010, the number of shares beneficially owned by each of the Named Executive Officers (NEOs) identified in the executive compensation tables of this Proxy Statement, and by all directors and executive officers as a group. Except as described in the notes following the table, the following persons have sole voting and dispositive power as to all of their respective shares.

8    2010 Proxy Statement

Corporate Governance and Board Matters

Board Governance Guidelines

For many years, our Board of Directors has been committed to sound and effective corporate governance practices. These practices reflect the Board’s long-standing philosophy that a proper structure, appropriate policies and procedures, and reflective cultural factors provide the cornerstone to good governance. The Board documented those practices by adopting our Board Governance Guidelines. These Guidelines address director responsibilities, the composition of the Board, required Board meetings and materials, Board committee composition and responsibilities, and other corporate governance matters. Under our Guidelines, a majority of the members of our Board must qualify as independent under the listing standards of the NASDAQ National Markets requirements. Our Guidelines also require the Board to have, among other committees, an Audit Committee, an Executive Compensation Committee, and a Nominating and Governance Committee, and that each member of those committees qualify as an independent director under the NASDAQ listing standards. Our Board Governance Guidelines, as well as the charters of each of the foregoing committees, are available for review on our website at www.hermanmiller.com/governance.

The Board Governance Guidelines relating to the offices of Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chairperson state that “the Board believes the roles of CEO and Chairperson should normally be separated. If the positions are combined, the Board will closely monitor the performance and working relationship between the CEO/Chairperson and the Board and will establish a Lead Director who acts as a liaison between directors and the CEO/Chairman and who chairs meetings of the independent directors.”

Consistent with our Guidelines, the roles of CEO and Chairperson are currently separate. At this time, the Board has also chosen to utilize a lead independent director to chair meetings of the independent directors or if the Chairperson is not present.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

The Company's management annually engages in an enterprise risk management process, the key output of which is a risk matrix that is intended to identify and categorize strategic risks. The matrix also identifies (1) those members of senior management who are responsible for monitoring each major risk, and (2) whether that risk is reviewed by the Board or a committee of the Board. The development of this matrix is facilitated by the Company's Business Risk Group, through discussions with executive and senior management. Management and the Business Risk Group annually review and discuss the risk assessment process and results with the Audit Committee, and if applicable recommend what risks are being adequately addressed, directly or indirectly, on a regular basis and of what risks should be further discussed with the full Board or other committees and the appropriate form and timing of such discussions.

Under the Company's governance rules the Board of Directors is responsible for evaluating CEO performance, monitoring succession planning, reviewing the Company's major financial objectives, evaluating whether the business is being properly managed and overseeing the processes for maintaining the integrity of the Company with respect to its financial statements, public disclosures and compliance with laws. The Board has delegated the primary oversight for managing the risk with respect to some of these to the various board committees as described in the committee charters.

The Board has delegated the oversight of the appropriateness of risk in compensation plans to the Executive Compensation Committee. During the year the Executive Compensation Committee asked management, in conjunction with the Company’s Business Risk Group, to review the Company’s compensation policies and practices to determine if those policies or practices are likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company. The Business Risk Group conducted its review and provided a report to management and the Executive Compensation Committee in June 2010. In conducting its review, management considered the structure of the compensation plans, the presence of risk mitigating features such as caps, multi-year earning provisions, multi-year vesting provisions and “clawbacks”, and the inter-relationship of the compensation structure and mitigating controls on the Company’s broader enterprise risk management matrix. Based on the review, and after consultation with Pearl Meyers and Partners, the Executive Compensation Committee’s independent advisor, management reported to the Executive Compensation Committee that the Company’s compensation policies and practices are not likely to create a material adverse impact on the Company.

Code of Conduct

Our Board has adopted a Code of Conduct that applies to all of our employees, officers, and directors. This code also serves as the code of ethics for our CEO and senior financial officers. This code is posted on our website at www.hermanmiller.com/code. Any changes to or waivers of the code must be approved by the Board of Directors and will be disclosed. There were no waivers in fiscal year 2010. The Code of Conduct was updated in December 2009. This update addressed issues encountered in various international locations and includes language reflective of the Company’s commitment to comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Anti-Boycott Rules and fair labor practices and compliance initiatives worldwide. The code of conduct meets the requirements of the NASDAQ listing standards.

9    Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Corporate Governance and Board Matters (continued)

Determination of Independence of Board Members

As required by our Board Governance Guidelines, our Board has determined that each of our directors, other than Messrs. Walker and Nemschoff, qualifies as an “Independent Director,” as such term is defined in the NASDAQ listing standards, and that none of those independent directors has a material relationship with the Company. The Board’s determination was made as a result of its review of completed individual questionnaires addressing the nature and extent of each member’s relationship with the Company and taking into consideration the definition of “Independent Director” under the NASDAQ rules. Our Board also determined that each member of the Audit Committee, Executive Compensation Committee, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meets the independence requirements applicable to those committees as prescribed by the NASDAQ listing standards, and, as to the Audit Committee, the applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Meeting Attendance

Each of our directors is expected to attend all meetings of the Board and applicable committee meetings. The annual meeting of shareholders is held via the internet and the directors are encouraged to join the webcast. Eight of our directors did so for our 2009 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting. During fiscal 2010, the Board held five meetings; each director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate number of meetings of our Board and Board committees on which they served. Consistent with the requirements of our Guidelines, our Board met in executive sessions, without the presence of management, following the conclusion of each regularly scheduled Board meeting. These meetings were chaired by the Chairman, Mr. Volkema. In addition, following three of the four regularly scheduled Board Meetings, the independent directors met separately.

Communications with the Board

Shareholders and other parties interested in communicating directly with one or more of our directors may do so by writing to us, c/o Corporate Secretary, 855 East Main Avenue, PO Box 302, Zeeland, Michigan 49464-0302. The Corporate Secretary will forward all relevant correspondence to the director or directors to whom the communication is directed.

Director Nominations

Our Bylaws contain certain procedural requirements applicable to shareholder nominations of directors. Shareholders may nominate a person to serve as a director if they provide written notice to us not earlier than the close of business on the 120th day and not later than the close of business on the 90th day prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting of shareholders and, with respect to any special meeting of shareholders, not later than the close of business on the 10th day following the date on which the meeting is first publicly announced or, if there is no announcement, the 10th day following the date on which the notice of that meeting was first sent to our shareholders. The notice must include (1) the name and address of the shareholder providing notice and of the person or persons nominated, including information on the securities of the Company held by those individuals, including any derivative securities, the details of which are set forth in our Bylaws, (2) a representation that the shareholder is a current record holder and will continue to hold those shares through the date of the meeting and intends to attend the meeting in person or by proxy, (3) for each proposed nominee, (a) all information relating to that person that would be required to be disclosed in a proxy statement required to be made in connection with solicitations or proxies for election of directors in a contested election pursuant to Section 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (including that person’s written consent to be named in the proxy statement as a nominee and to serve as a director if elected), and (b) a description of all direct and indirect compensation and other material monetary arrangements existing during the past three years, as well as any other material relationships between or among the shareholders (and beneficial owner, if any) and their respective affiliates and associates and the proposed nominee and his or her respective affiliates and associates, including all information required to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 404 under Regulation S-K, and (4) the completed and signed questionnaire from each nominee with respect to the background and qualification of such person and the background of any other person or entity on whose behalf the nomination is being made.

Our Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for reviewing the qualifications and independence of the members of the Board. To meet the needs of the Company in a rapidly changing environment, the Board Governance Guidelines explain that the Company requires a high-performance board of directors whose members subscribe to our values and meet the specific resource needs of the business.  To that end, the Nominating and Governance Committee considers a diversity of factors it deems appropriate when considering candidates for the Board; such factors may include experience and knowledge of the Company’s history and culture, technical experience and backgrounds such as manufacturing, design, marketing, technology, finance, management structure and philosophy, and experience as a senior executive of a public company.  The Nominating and Governance Committee may consider such factors as race and gender as well as industry experience in annually assessing and reviewing the current slate of directors and potential director candidates as the need arises.  The Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible with the Board for assessing the appropriate skills and characteristics required of Board members in the context of the current make-up of the Board.  These factors, and others as considered useful by the Nominating and Governance Committee or the Board, are reviewed in the context of an assessment of the perceived needs of the Board at a particular point in time. 

10    2010 Proxy Statement

Corporate Governance and Board Matters (continued)

Other than the procedural requirements described above, the Board has not adopted a policy with regard to the consideration of director candidates nominated by shareholders. The Board believes that all candidates, by whomever nominated, should be evaluated in the same manner and under the same standards.

Information about the Nominees and Directors

Certain information with respect to the nominees for election at the Meeting, as well as each of the other Directors, is set forth below, including their names, ages, a brief description of their recent business experience, including present occupations and employment, certain directorships that each person held during the last five years, and the year in which each person became a Director of the Company. Additional information about each continuing Director is also included that describes some of the specific experiences, qualifications, attributes or skills that each Director possesses which the Board believes has prepared them to be effective Directors.

11    Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Corporate Governance and Board Matters (continued)

12   2010 Proxy Statement

Corporate Governance and Board Matters (continued)

13   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Corporate Governance and Board Matters (continued)

The Nominating and Governance Committee has not received any recommended nominations from any of our shareholders in connection with our 2010 annual meeting. The nominees who are standing for election as directors at the 2010 annual meeting are incumbent directors and each was recommended by the committee.

14   2010 Proxy Statement

Board Committees

Our Board has four standing committees. Committee responsibilities are detailed in written charters. These charters are available on our Internet website at www.hermanmiller.com/charters. The committees are as follows:

Nominating and Governance Committee

We have a Nominating and Governance Committee comprised of Dorothy A. Terrell (chair), Lord Brian Griffiths of Fforestfach, and David O. Ulrich. The Nominating and Governance Committee develops and recommends to the Board governance standards and policies and board compensation including that of the chairman of the board. In addition, the committee identifies and recommends to the Board candidates for election to the Board. The committee met four times during the last fiscal year.

Executive Committee

We have an Executive Committee comprised of Michael A. Volkema (chair), J. Barry Griswell, James R. Kackley, C. William Pollard and Dorothy A. Terrell. The Executive Committee acts from time to time on behalf of the Board in managing our business and affairs (except as limited by law or our Bylaws) and is delegated certain assignments and functions by the Board of Directors. The committee met five times during the last fiscal year.

Audit Committee

We have an Audit Committee comprised of James R. Kackley (chair), Mary V. Andringa and C. William Pollard. Mr. Kackley is qualified as and serves as the “Audit Committee financial expert” within the meaning of the applicable SEC regulations. This committee, composed entirely of independent directors under the applicable listing standards of the NASDAQ listing requirements, as well as the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, is responsible for overseeing management’s reporting practices and internal controls on behalf of the Board of Directors. The committee is also responsible for appointing, approving the compensation of, and overseeing our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee met eight times during the last fiscal year. The June 2010 meeting included an annual review of the committee’s written charter.

Executive Compensation Committee

We have an Executive Compensation Committee comprised of J. Barry Griswell (chair), Douglas D. French, and John R. Hoke III. The Executive Compensation Committee recommends to the Board the annual executive incentive plan and the annual remuneration of our Chief Executive Officer and President, approves the annual remuneration and executive incentive plan for the other executive officers, approves the grants of employee stock options and other equity awards, and acts as the administrative committee for our employee stock option and long-term incentive plans. A description of the committee’s processes and procedures for the consideration and determination of executive and director compensation is set forth under the caption “Compensation Disclosure and Analysis -The Executive Compensation Committee” below in this Proxy Statement. The committee met five times during the last fiscal year.

Executive Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

No member of the Executive Compensation Committee is or has been an officer or employee of the company or had any relationship that is required to be disclosed as a transaction with a related party except as noted under Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions. In addition, no current executive officer of the Company has ever served as a member of the Board of Directors or Compensation Committee of any other entity that has or has had one or more executive officers serving as a member of our Board of Directors or Compensation Committee.

15   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Report of the Audit Committee

The Audit Committee’s purpose is to oversee the accounting and financial reporting processes of the company, the audits of the company’s financial statements and management’s assessment of the company’s internal controls, the qualifications of the public accounting firm engaged as the company’s independent registered public accounting firm, and the performance of the company’s internal auditors and independent registered public accounting firm. The Committee’s function is more fully described in its charter, which the Board has adopted and is available on the Company's website at
http://www.hermanmiller.com/MarketFacingTech/hmc/about_us/Investors/audit_committee_charter.pdf

The Committee reviews the charter on an annual basis. The Board annually reviews the NASDAQ listing standards definition of independence for audit committee members and has determined that each member of the Committee meets that standard.

Management is responsible for the preparation, presentation, and integrity of the company’s financial statements, accounting and financial reporting principles, internal controls, and procedures designed to ensure compliance with accounting standards, applicable laws, and regulations. The company’s independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, is responsible for performing an independent audit of the consolidated financial statements and expressing an opinion on the conformity of those financial statements with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Ernst & Young LLP is also responsible for providing an opinion on the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

We have reviewed—and discussed with management and Ernst & Young LLP—the company’s audited financial statements for the year ended May 29, 2010, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls over financial reporting, and Ernst & Young LLP’s evaluation of the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

We have discussed with Ernst & Young LLP the matters required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114, The Auditor’s Communication with Those Charged with Governance (which superseded Auditing Standards No. 61, Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence, as amended)

We have received and reviewed the written disclosures and the letter from Ernst & Young LLP required by the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding Ernst and Young LLP's communications with the Audit Committee regarding independence and we have discussed with Ernst & Young LLP their independence including a consideration of the compatibility of non-audit services with their independence.

Based on the reviews and discussions referred to above, we recommended to the Board of Directors that the financial statements referred to above be included in the company’s Form 10-K Report for the year ended May 29, 2010, and we selected Ernst & Young LLP as the independent auditor for fiscal year 2011. The Board is recommending that shareholders ratify that selection at the annual meeting.

James R. Kackley (chair)          Mary Vermeer Andringa          C. William Pollard

16   2010 Proxy Statement

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Overview of Compensation Program

The Executive Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Committee”) is responsible for establishing the executive compensation programs at Herman Miller, Inc. (the “Company,” “us” or similar pronouns). The Committee seeks to insure that the compensation paid to the Company’s corporate officers is fair, reasonable, competitive and consistent with our compensation philosophy.

The Company is required to provide information regarding our compensation policies and decisions for our President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and the three other most highly compensated executive officers. We refer to our CEO, CFO and the other highly compensated executive officers for whom disclosure is required collectively as our “Named Executive Officers” or “NEOs.” This Compensation Discussion and Analysis is intended to provide information regarding, among other things, the overall objectives of our compensation program and each element of compensation provided to the NEOs.

The Executive Compensation Committee

The Committee is comprised of three directors, each qualifying as an independent director under NASDAQ’s listing requirements. The Board has determined that each member of the Committee also meets the definition of independence under Herman Miller’s corporate governance guidelines and further each member qualifies as a non−employee Director for purposes of Rule 16b−3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Committee’s primary functions are to oversee the compensation philosophy and strategy, to determine or recommend the compensation of company officers, including the NEOs, and to act as the Administrative Committee for the Company’s key executive compensation plans.

The Committee is responsible for recommendations to the full Board with respect to all aspects of the annual compensation of the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer. The Committee, based upon recommendations from our CEO, approves the annual compensation for all other corporate officers covered by Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 including the NEOs (Corporate Officers). Our President and Chief Executive Officer establishes the base salary of all other company executives. The Committee establishes any performance objectives for the Economic Value Added (EVA®) Incentive Cash Bonus Plan and the equity-based compensation plans, which cover the President and Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Officers, and executive employees of the company.

The Committee does not set compensation for the Board of Directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for reviewing, and recommending to the Board of Directors, the amount and form of payment of director compensation including that of the Chairman.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

Our compensation philosophy, as formulated by management and endorsed by the Committee and by our Board of Directors, is to allow for an appropriate level of compensation variability that bears a relationship to the competitive market, to the responsibilities of the employee and to the performance of the employee and Company.  Consistent with this philosophy, the key objectives of our executive compensation program are to:

·   Link a material portion of executives’ total annual compensation directly to the Company’s performance

·   Reinforce our values, build corporate community, and focus employees on common goals

·   Align the interests of executives with the long-term interests of shareholders

·   Attract, motivate, and retain executives of outstanding ability.

The compensation program is intended to provide executives who are judged to perform their duties at a proficient level with compensation that approximates the market median compensation for their position based upon the data provided by Towers Watson (as described later in the Benchmarking of Compensation section). The compensation program is also intended to have the portion of a Corporate Officer’s compensation determined by the Company’s performance increase as the responsibility and authority of the Corporate Officer increases. The Committee believes that the compensation program through the use of base salary, annual incentive cash bonus and long-term incentives operates in a manner consistent with these objectives and rewards performance that generates both consistent and long-term enhancement of shareholder value. The compensation program and its various elements are described in more detail in the section entitled Elements of the Compensation Program.

17   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Compensation Discussion and Analysis (continued)

External Consultants

During fiscal year 2010, the Committee retained Pearl Meyers and Partners as independent compensation consultants to the Committee. Pearl Meyers was not permitted to provide other consulting services to the Company. The independent services which Pearl Meyers provided to the Committee included reviewing the elements of compensation of the President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as the other Corporate Officers, and comparing those elements to the Company’s compensation philosophy and objectives and to the market practices for such compensation. Pearl Meyers concluded that the compensation program established for those officers is consistent with the Company’s compensation philosophy and objectives and with market practices.

The Company retains Towers Watson to provide benchmarking data and compensation consulting services to management and, from time to time, other specialized work as may be required, such as conducting a review of retirement or other benefit programs. With the approval of the Committee, Towers Watson in 2010 also provided consulting services to the Company including consulting services concerning certain aspects of executive compensation. 

Benchmarking of Compensation

To ensure that executive compensation is competitive in the marketplace, the Committee uses benchmarking data to compare our compensation programs to general market pay practices. The Committee chooses to benchmark compensation levels against industrial companies in general as it minimizes the potential volatility of market pay data due to changes in database/survey participation or mergers/acquisitions; lessens the impact that a single entity can have on the overall data; provides a more consistent result; and better reflects the market in which the Company competes for executive talent. The Committee believes the competitive market for executive talent in which the Company operates is the general corporate talent market, not just the office furniture or West Michigan talent markets.

Towers Watson annually presents the Committee with benchmarking data, market practices and trends to provide appropriate context for the Committee’s deliberations. Our CEO makes recommendations to the Committee regarding the compensation package for each of the Corporate Officers (other than himself). The CEO’s recommendations are based on the Towers Watson information, his evaluation of the individual’s performance, the Company’s performance and other factors. The Committee’s approval of the CEO’s recommendations as to the compensation of Corporate Officers (other than the CEO) is based upon the Committee’s review of the information from Towers Watson relative to market pay, advice from Pearl Meyers and their own judgment, including their judgment on the relative performance of both the Company and its executives. Based upon these same factors relative to the CEO’s performance and the independent advice of Pearl Meyers, the Committee makes a recommendation to the full board for the CEO’s compensation. The Board of Directors determines the compensation of the CEO.

Towers Watson in 2010 used the following survey sources when analyzing the market competitiveness pay levels of Corporate Officers; Towers Perrin Executive Compensation Database, Watson Wyatt Top Management Compensation Report, and the Mercer Executive Database (collectively these are referred to as “Published Survey Data”). The Published Survey Data is used to determine competitiveness of base pay, cash incentive bonus and long term incentive awards. Towers Watson uses a regression analysis and aging to make allowances for time differences in the data and to align the data so that it is representative of companies having revenues equivalent to the operations managed by our individual NEOs. The entities within the comparator groups were not disclosed to the Company.

Towers Watson compares the base salary, target total cash and target total direct compensation of each NEO to the 25th, 50th (market median) and 75th percentile of the Published Survey Data or Towers Perrin Executive Compensation Database for a comparable benchmark position. Each of the compensation elements is explained in more detail below. Positions are benchmarked based upon comparability of responsibilities and the annual revenues of the operations managed.

The Committee annually reviews executive information provided by Towers Watson which reflects the total direct compensation to the NEOs and also information relating to the other elements of compensation including payments under severance or change in control obligations. The Committee uses this information to help it determine that the Company’s compensation program is consistent with market norms and with our compensation philosophy and the objectives referenced above.

The Committee, based upon its experience, the compensation information, the benchmarking data, the proxy statement compensation information of our direct competitors and advice from Pearl Meyers has determined that total compensation for each NEO in fiscal 2010 was appropriate, reasonable and consistent with the Company’s compensation philosophy and objectives as described above.

18   2010 Proxy Statement

Compensation Discussion and Analysis (continued)

Elements of the Compensation Program

Our Corporate Officer compensation package includes five distinct elements:

These five elements form an executive’s total compensation package. The first two elements form an executive’s total cash compensation and the first three elements form an executive’s total direct compensation package. It is the Company’s goal to align the compensation packages with prevailing market rates. The alignment is accomplished primarily through adjustments to each Corporate Officer’s total direct compensation.

Each element of total direct compensation is benchmarked to the prevailing market. However, globally, in certain circumstances local practices related to long-term incentives and bonuses may be significantly different than those applicable to the Company as a whole. In those circumstances, the Company attempts to accommodate local practices but emphasizes consistency in the application of its long-term incentive programs and adjusts base and bonus so as to maintain total direct compensation in an amount that is consistent with the Company’s compensation philosophy. The compensation program is intended to provide executives who are judged to perform their duties at a proficient level with a total direct compensation package that approximates the market median compensation for such position based upon the data provided by Towers Watson. However, because of the performance based nature of the Annual Executive Incentive Cash Bonus and the Long-Term Equity Incentives, actual compensation of the NEOs may vary from market rates from year to year.

As a result of impact of the recession upon the Company’s performance, the Committee temporarily reduced the NEO compensation programs for 2009 and 2010. The Committee, given the improving economic outlook for 2011, has approved returning 95% of their normalized base pay and partially reversing last year's reductions to their long-term equity incentive grants, which changes are described below. The Committee determined that the total direct compensation (base salary, target incentive cash bonus and target long-term incentive grant) for each NEO for 2010 and 2011 is within the benchmarked range, given the NEO’s performance, position and the Company’s performance.

Base Salary

The CEO evaluates each of the Corporate Officers annually and makes recommendations to the Committee for base salary. The base salary of the CEO is set by the Board of Directors. In general, but subject to individual circumstances, base salaries reflect market rates for comparative positions and the NEO's level of proficiency and performance.  The base salary of NEOs assessed by the CEO and the Committee to be proficient is generally targeted at the market median of the Published Survey Data. The base compensation of NEOs with less experience in general would be below the market median and those judged to be performing at a level higher than proficient generally would be above the market median. The Committee in each circumstance uses its judgment and experience in setting the specific level of base salary relative to the general market median data.

Base Salary in 2010

The base salaries for the NEOs for 2010 reflect the temporary reductions implemented during fiscal year 2009 and continued throughout all of fiscal 2010.

Effective July 21, 2008 the Board and the Committee set NEOs’ base salary for fiscal 2009. The base salary of Brian C. Walker was set by the Board at $720,000.  This base salary was approved by the Board of Directors based upon Mr. Walker’s excellent performance in driving the operating results of the Company in the previous fiscal year. Gregory J. Bylsma was appointed chief financial officer in February, 2009 and his base salary set at $250,000 which reflected the fact that he was new in his position. The base salary for Kenneth L. Goodson, Executive Vice President-Operations was set by the Committee at $270,000 and reflected the Committee’s determination that he continued to perform well in his position. The base salary of Andrew J. Lock was set at $330,000 and reflected the Committee’s determination that Mr. Lock continued to meet all the requirements of his role as Chief Administrative Officer. Effective April 1, 2010 Mr. Lock assumed the role of President Herman Miller International and his base salary continued at the existing level. The base salary of Curtis S. Pullen was set by the Committee at $350,000. This base salary reflected Mr. Pullen’s role as chief financial officer for the first part of fiscal 2009 and was maintained upon his subsequent appointment as President of North American Office and Learning Environments.

In fiscal 2009 and 2010 the Company and the economy continued to endure a period of severe economic stress. As the depth of the recession became clear, the Committee and the Board approved recommendations from the Executive Leadership Team to temporarily reduce the Base Salary (and Long Term Incentives) for most Corporate Officers including the NEOs described above. Effective January 1, 2009, the Committee and the Board, with the support of management, temporarily reduced the compensation of the members of the Executive Leadership Team, except for Brian Walker by five percent (Mr. Walker’s base salary was reduced by 10%) and then effective

19   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Compensation Discussion and Analysis (continued)

March 9, 2009 the Committee and Board approved a second temporary reduction for most of the NEOs and a 10% reduction in base salary for the other Corporate Officers. After this reduction the effective base salary of Brian Walker was $583,200, the effective base salary of Greg Bylsma was $225,000, the effective base salary of Ken Goodson was $230,850, the effective base salary of Andy Lock was $282,150, and the effective base salary of Curt Pullen was $299,250.

The reductions were implemented consistent with the Committee’s philosophy that base salary should in part reflect the Company’s business performance. None of the changes in base salary reflected a change in the individual performance of the NEOs.

Also effective March 9, 2009 the Company implemented a reduced work schedule for most other salaried employees under which the employees worked nine out of every ten weekdays. The Company implemented this work schedule in response to the economic downturn. The schedule results in an effective 10 percent reduction in pay for those employees impacted by the change. In connection with that reduced schedule, the Committee adopted at management’s recommendation a salary replacement plan that would recover some of the reduced compensation for those employees when the Company exceeded certain operating income goals. Members of the Executive Leadership Team, including NEOs were not eligible to participate in this plan.

Base Salary in 2011

The Board and the Committee have decided to not grant general merit increases to the Company’s employees including most of the NEOs for fiscal 2011, but did approve returning the salaried employees, including all of the NEOs, to 95% of their normalized base salaries. The Board and Committee have approved returning all hourly employees to their normal work schedule.  Salaried employees have returned to their normal work schedule at 95% of their normalized base salary and such employees other than the Executive Leadership Team (including all of the NEOs) will continue to participate in the salary replacement plan which will allow the participants to receive up to their normalized base salary. The NEOs will not participate in a base salary reduction bonus program. The Committee also approved an increase in Greg Bylsma’s normalized base salary to $300,000. The increase in Greg Bylsma’s normalized base salary reflects the completion of his first full year as Chief Financial Officer. As of July 19, 2010, the effective base salary of Brian Walker is $684,000, the effective base salary of Greg Bylsma is $285,000, the effective base salary of Ken Goodson is $256,500, the effective base salary of Andy Lock is $313,500, and the effective base salary of Curt Pullen is $332,500. 

Each of the normalized base salaries set for the NEOs by the Committee were within the range established for their performance in position.

Annual Executive Incentive Cash Bonus

The annual executive incentive cash bonus for the Corporate Officers is paid pursuant to the Executive Incentive Cash Bonus Plan. This plan is intended to link annual incentive compensation to the creation of shareholder value. The Executive Incentive Cash Bonus Plan provides for the annual payment of a cash bonus (Incentive Cash Bonus) to selected executives based upon the performance of the Company during the fiscal year. The annual Incentive Cash Bonus is reported in the Summary Compensation Table under the column titled “Non-equity Incentive Plan Compensation.” Payments are made following the end of the fiscal year.

The measure of performance for the Incentive Cash Bonus is EVA. EVA in general terms is equal to the Company’s net operating income after subtraction of taxes and a charge for capital. The Committee believes that the utilization of the EVA measurement system, with its focus on maximizing the Company’s return on capital investments relative to its cost of capital, is an effective means of evaluating and rewarding executive performance.

Under the Executive Incentive Cash Bonus Plan a participant is assigned an Incentive Cash Bonus target expressed as a percentage of his or her base pay, and the actual bonus payment is determined by comparing the actual improvement in EVA achieved by the Company against expected improvement. The expected improvement is the dollar amount of EVA improvement necessary to earn the targeted EVA bonus. The interval is the dollar amount of EVA change, either above or below the expected improvement, necessary to either double the EVA bonus amount or reduce it to zero.

The actual Incentive Cash Bonus amount paid with respect to any year may range from 0 to 2 times of the target based upon the relative achievement of our EVA targets described below. The Committee normally sets the EVA targets for 3 year periods. The current 3 year period expired at the end of fiscal 2010. The Incentive Cash Bonus earned by participants is expected over time to average 100% of his or her individual target. The target Incentive Cash Bonus percentage for the NEOs generally is set so that the incentive cash bonus at on-target performance will equal 100% of the market median bonus amount for comparable positions as shown in the Towers Perrin Executive Compensation Database, although as explained earlier, base pay and bonus may be adjusted in order to maintain total compensation in an amount that is consistent with our compensation philosophy. The Committee believes that this use of Incentive Cash Bonus is consistent with the objective of making compensation for senior corporate officers more variable with the Company’s performance. 

The Committee is responsible for administering all elements of the Executive Incentive Cash Bonus Plan, except that those elements of the plan relating to the CEO (including target percentage payment) are approved by the Board. The Committee approves participants in the plan, the target payment percentage, the EVA improvement goals and the cost of capital. The Audit Committee at the end of each fiscal year approves the calculation of EVA results for the year and the EVA change from the previous year and the resulting bonus factor. The Committee certifies the use of the bonus factor for use in the Incentive Cash Bonus calculation. The EVA targets for 2010 were an expected improvement of $9 million and an interval of $32 million. The cost of capital in 2010 was 10.5%.

20   2010 Proxy Statement

21   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Compensation Discussion and Analysis (continued)

LTI Grants in fiscal year 2010 (July 2009)

At the June and July 2009 meetings (the beginning of fiscal 2010) the Committee and the Board made LTI awards for the just completed 2009 fiscal year and established target values for LTI grants to be made with respect to fiscal year 2010.

The target LTI grants established in July 2009 were the basis for the grants actually made in July 2010. For NEOs (other than Ken Goodson) the target value was expressed as a percentage of his or her normalized base salary.

The actual LTI grants awarded in July 2009 were divided; one-third restricted stock units, one-third market priced stock options, and one-third to be selected by the participant between the two forms of equity awards, except for the grants to the CEO and to Ken Goodson. The LTI grant to Brian Walker, CEO consists entirely of options. The LTI grant to Ken Goodson consists entirely of RSUs pursuant to his retention agreement which is described in the Termination and Retention Payments section. The Committee believes that allowing the NEOs to have some flexibility in modifying the mix between options and RSUs gives the NEOs a greater sense of deriving value from the awards. The Committee believes limiting the LTI award to the CEO to options in this difficult economic environment is an appropriate method to link the risk and reward associated with his LTI compensation to the Company’s performance.

The Committee and Board in June and July 2008 had set target LTI grant values. Prior to the grants being awarded in July 2009, they reduced the value of the LTI grants to be awarded to NEOs with respect to fiscal 2009 to 50% of the target value. The reduction from target value reflects the performance of the Company and the weak overall economic conditions during fiscal year 2009 and do not reflect a change in the performance of any individual NEO.   The value of the LTI grants actually made in July 2009 as a percent of base salary (including options and restricted stock units) was 112.5% for Brian Walker, 50% for Curt Pullen, Andy Lock and Greg Bylsma. For Ken Goodson the grant was set at $103,000. The values of these grants are reflected in both the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table. The characteristics of the restricted stock units and options are more fully described below.

The key features of the restricted stock units and options awarded in fiscal year 2010 are as follows:

Restricted Stock Units: The restricted stock units (RSUs) consist of units representing the right to receive shares of Herman Miller, Inc. common stock.  These units reflect fair market value of the common stock as of the date of grant and cliff vest after three years. If the employee leaves the company for any reason other than death, disability, retirement or termination without cause, vesting of the units will stop and any unvested units will be forfeited.  RSUs convert into shares after they vest. Dividends accrue on the RSUs and are added to the total value of the units.

Stock Options: The options vest equally over three years, have a ten year life and are priced at fair market value on the date of grant.

The following table discloses the actual awards received by the NEOs based upon determination by the Board for Mr. Walker, the retention agreement for Mr. Goodson and upon elections made by the other NEOs with respect to the awards received in July 2009 (fiscal 2010) with respect to fiscal 2009.

LTI Grants Awarded in FY 2011 (July 2010)

The Committee and Board at their June and July 2010 meetings awarded the LTI grants with respect to fiscal 2010. The Committee-approved LTI grant awards again consist of options and RSUs with the features described above. The value of the LTI grants for fiscal year 2010 were 75% of the target value tentatively established for each participant for fiscal year 2010 to be applied against normalized salary (before the temporary reductions imposed as cost saving measures). The target values for fiscal year 2010 as a percent of normalized base salary for the Long-Term Incentive Grants (including options and restricted stock units) remained unchanged from fiscal year 2009 for all NEOs. The value of the actual LTI grants made in July 2010 for fiscal year 2010 therefore as a percent of normalized base salary  was 168.75% for Brian Walker, 75% for Curt Pullen, Andy Lock, and Greg Bylsma and 67.5% for Ken Goodson. Brian Walker's award consists solely of stock options and Ken Goodson’s award consists solely of restricted stock units. The awards for all other participants consisted of one-third stock options, one-third restricted stock units and one-third to be selected by the participant between the two forms of equity awards. The change in the actual award percentage to 75% of target value reflects the weak overall economic conditions during fiscal year 2010 and Committee and Board’s perception of the relative overall performance of the Company during fiscal 2010. The changes do not reflect a change in the performance of any individual NEO. Options granted in July 2010 have the same characteristics as those granted in July 2009.

The restricted stock units (RSUs) consisted of units representing the right to receive shares of Herman Miller, Inc. common stock. These units reflect the fair market value of the common stock as of the date of grant and cliff vest after three years. If the employee leaves the company for any reason other than death, disability, retirement or termination without cause, during the three year vesting period any unvested units are forfeited. If an employee dies, becomes disabled or is terminated for reasons other than cause during the

22   2010 Proxy Statement

23   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Compensation Discussion and Analysis (continued)

Retirement Income Plan: The Herman Miller, Inc. Retirement Income Plan (Cash Balance Plan) is what is known as a hybrid plan. Under the Plan the Company accrues a benefit for the participant which is expressed as a fixed dollar amount (cash balance). The Company credits each employee’s account with an amount equal to 4% of his or her salary, up to the maximum salary level permitted by the Internal Revenue Service (currently $245,000). Each account is also credited with hypothetical interest earning pegged to a predetermined benchmark (for fiscal 2010 interest was credited at 3.76%).

Profit Sharing Plan:  The Herman Miller, Inc. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan consists of two parts. The Company annually makes a contribution to the profit sharing portion based upon the Company’s EVA results for the year that may range from 0% to 6% of base salaries, with a target contribution of 3% of base salary.  Based upon our EVA results, the actual percentage contributed for fiscal year 2010 was 0%. The amount of salary included in the base for the calculation is limited to the maximum salary level permitted by the IRS. The 401(k) portion of the plan is a salary deferral plan. Each employee may elect to defer up to the maximum amount permitted. The Company normally matches up to half of the amount deferred by the employee up to the first 6% of the employee’s compensation contributed. Beginning March 9, 2009 the Company suspended matching payments to the plan.

Herman Miller Limited Retirement Plan:  Herman Miller Limited, the Company’s wholly owned UK subsidiary maintains an average final pay pension plan for all of its retirees. Under the plan each employee is entitled to a normal basic pension equal to an equivalent of 1/70th of final pensionable salary for each complete year of service. The pension is subject to a maximum of 40/70ths of final pensionable salary. Effective June 1, 2009 the Company received the consent of the participants in the UK plan to suspend further benefit accruals under the plan. This plan was reinstated in June 2010.

Perquisites and Other Executive Compensation Plans

Perquisites

The Company is conservative in its approach to executive perquisite benefits. Company compensation practices in general do not provide for personal perquisites and the Committee has adopted a policy which specifically restricts the use of corporate aircraft for non-business purposes. We provide a limited number of perquisites to Corporate Officers. The Company normally provides each NEO with a specified dollar amount which can be used for a range of perquisites. These perquisites include financial planning, life insurance, spousal travel and other benefits. In fiscal year 2010 the dollar amount of these benefits awarded was $20,000 for the CEO and  $12,000 for each of the other NEOs.

The Company does not normally provide non-business-related use of chartered aircraft for Corporate Officers and none was provided in 2010.

The Company in 2010 did provide the NEOs and all other Corporate Officers with the opportunity to purchase certain additional disability insurance and to obtain comprehensive physicals paid for by the Company.

Deferred Compensation Plans

In 2008 the Committee discontinued use of the Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan and approved the Herman Miller, Inc. Executive Equalization Retirement Plan.

The Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan allowed selected employees to defer part or all of their Executive Incentive Cash Bonus payment each year. The Company matched any such deferral, up to 50% of the incentive cash bonus payment. The matching payment vests over three years and vesting is dependent upon the executive remaining employed with the Company. Amounts deferred are converted into units having the same value as the Company’s stock and are credited with amounts at the same rate as the Company’s dividend on its common stock. Units are converted into shares of the Company’s common stock at the time of distribution. Only one executive, Brian Walker, elected to participate in the Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan in fiscal 2007. The vesting on the Company matching contribution is shown on the 2010 Summary Compensation Table under All Other Compensation.

The Herman Miller, Inc. Executive Equalization Retirement Plan was approved by the Committee and the Board in 2008. The plan is a supplemental deferred compensation plan and became available for salary deferrals beginning in January 2008. The plan is available to highly compensated United States employees who are selected for participation by the Committee. All of the NEOs are currently allowed to participate. The plan allows participants to defer up to 50% of their base salary and 100% of their Incentive Cash Bonus. Company contributions to the plan “mirror” the amounts the Company would have contributed to the Herman Miller Retirement Income Plan and the Herman Miller Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan had the employee’s compensation not been above the statutory ceiling (currently $245,000). Investment options under this plan are the same as those available under the 401(k) Plan except for Company stock which is not an investment option under this plan. For that part of fiscal year 2009 before March 9, 2009, the Company’s contribution was equal to 50% of the participant’s retirement savings contributions until the matching contribution for the NEO brought the Company’s contribution credited to the Executive Equalization Retirement Plan, the Herman Miller Retirement Income Plan and the Herman Miller Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan up to the amount necessary to accomplish the “mirroring.”  On March 9, 2009 the Company in conjunction with the suspension of matching contributions to the Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan also suspended the “mirroring” profit sharing and 401(k) contributions under the Executive Equalization Plan. Company contributions for amounts deferred in fiscal 2009 prior to the suspension were made in 2010 and appear in the 2010 Summary Compensation Table under All Other Compensation.

24   2010 Proxy Statement

Compensation Discussion and Analysis (continued)

Executive Long Term Disability Plan

The plan covers 60% of the rolling two year average of executive incentive compensation.  Executives are eligible to participate when they have earned over $6,000 in annual executive incentive compensation.  This benefit continues as long as the executive is disabled until age 65.  The monthly benefit is capped at $10,000.  The executive can maintain the plan by paying Unum, the provider, directly when they leave the Company.

Deductibility of Compensation

The income tax laws of the United States limit the amount the Company may deduct for compensation paid to the company’s CEO, CFO and the other three most highly paid executives. Under IRS certain guidelines compensation that qualifies as “performance based” is not subject to this limit. During fiscal 2010 approximately $1,300,000 of compensation received by Brian Walker did not meet the requirements for deductibility. This non-deductible compensation primarily resulted from the vesting of a stock grant made to Mr. Walker in fiscal year 2005. Going forward we do not anticipate paying compensation that does not meet the IRS guidelines for deductibility as “performance based” compensation.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

The Committee believes that significant stock ownership by top management is of critical importance to the ongoing success of the Company, as it helps link the interests of senior management and company shareholders. Stock ownership requirements apply to the nine members of the Executive Leadership Team for the Company. Under these requirements, the President and Chief Executive Officer must own shares of company stock with an aggregate market value of at least six (6) times base salary, Corporate Officers having a Long-Term Incentive Plan target equal to 100% of base salary must own shares of Company stock with an aggregate market value of at least four times their respective base salaries and  all other direct reports to the CEO must own shares with an aggregate market value of three times their respective base salaries.

All participants must achieve their ownership requirement over a five-year period from the date of their appointment to the position. The Committee reviews the NEOs’ progress toward these goals annually during the Company’s fourth quarter. Ownership for the purpose of the guidelines is defined to include shares owned by the executives, as well as shares held in the Company’s Profit Sharing and 401(k) plan, restricted stock and restricted stock units (both vested and unvested), and deferred accounts for his or her benefit. Stock options and unissued performance shares are not included in the calculation of an executive’s total ownership. If a participant fails to meet the ownership guidelines within the specified period half of his or her Incentive Cash Bonus will be paid in the form of Company stock until the guideline is met.

An executive who has met the minimum expectation of ownership of the Company’s stock as approved by the Board or the Board Executive Compensation Committee within five years of assuming his or her key leadership position shall be certified as compliant with the Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines. Assuming no reduction in that ownership position, such executive shall continue to be compliant with the original certification in the event of temporary market fluctuations in Company stock price that would cause the value of the executive’s stock to fall below the approved Stock Ownership Guidelines.

Impact of Prior Compensation in Setting Elements of Compensation

Prior compensation of the NEOs does not normally impact how the Committee sets the current elements of compensation. The Committee believes the current competitive environment is more relevant in determining an NEO’s current total level of compensation. The Committee tracks all of the elements of current compensation to enable the Committee to determine whether the compensation which the NEO is currently receiving is consistent with market practices. The Committee, however, has the ability to consider the impact of any special equity grants upon the value of future grants made to Corporate Officers under the LTI plan.

Impact of Restatements Retroactively Impacting Financial Goals

The Company has not had any material restatement of prior financial results. If such restatements were to occur, the Committee would review the matter and determine what, if any, adjustment to current compensation might be appropriate. The LTI plan and the Executive Incentive Bonus Plan give the Committee the right to “claw back” Incentive Cash Bonus payments and LTI grants in the event of certain restatements.

Post−Employment Compensation

Change in control and discharge for other than cause can result in additional compensation being paid to or for certain NEOs. In addition, as described above, certain of the Long-Term Incentives payments continue to vest if the NEO leaves employment as the result of death, disability or retirement.

25   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Compensation Discussion and Analysis (continued)

Termination and Retention Payments

All of the NEOs are “at will” employees. This means that they can be discharged at any time and for no reason. The Company has agreed to pay Corporate Officers and other executives severance if they are terminated for reasons other than malfeasance or voluntary separation. For 2010 the severance payments for each NEO would have been equal to 18 months of base salary. The Committee’s determination as to the amount of severance payments is the result of benchmarking our practices to the Published Survey Data.  In addition, the Company maintains the health insurance on such employee during the salary continuation period. In exchange for such payments the employee provides the Company with a mutual release of all claims and agrees not to work for a competitor or solicit the Company’s employees during the salary continuation period.

In fiscal 2008 Ken Goodson entered into a three year retention agreement with the Company. He received a retention grant of 9,422 shares of the company stock which cliff vested in July 2010. Under the agreement he also received a cash bonus, in addition to his Incentive Cash Bonus, of $15,000 per year and his LTI annual grant was fixed at $206,000 per year and was awarded solely in RSUs. The Committee in January 2010 provided Ken Goodson with a new two year retention arrangement with the Company under which his normalized LTI grant will be equal to 90% of his normalized base salary and consist entirely of RSUs and he will continue to receive the additional annual bonus of $15,000. In December 2009 he also received a retention grant of 3,000 shares of Company stock to cliff vest on June 1, 2012 provided he remains with the Company.

Change in Control Agreements

Each NEO is party to a change in control agreement with the Company. In 2006 the Committee retained Frederic W. Cook to review the existing change in control agreements and to advise it on whether the continued use of such agreements was appropriate and if so whether the agreements were consistent with competitive practices. Frederic W. Cook advised the Committee that the continued use of change in control agreements is appropriate and that the amounts payable under the agreements were consistent with market practice. In 2006 the Company entered into new change in control agreements with the NEOs and certain other Corporate Officers and executives. The new form of change in control agreement is found under Exhibit 10 in the Company's consolidated  financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 2, 2007, included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Committee believes that the use of change in control agreements is appropriate as they help insure a continuity of management during a threatened take-over and help insure that management remains focused on completing a transaction that is likely to maximize shareholder value. Potential payments under the change in control agreements are included in the compensation information provided annually to the Committee.

The narrative and footnotes to the tables entitled Potential Payments upon Termination in Connection with a Change in Control describe the change in control payments in greater detail.

26   2010 Proxy Statement

Executive Compensation Committee Report

The Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with Management and, based on such review and discussions, the Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Proxy Statement.

J. Barry Griswell (chair)          Douglas D. French          John R. Hoke III

27   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Summary Compensation Table

The summary compensation table below shows the compensation for the Named Executive Officers “NEO” for the fiscal year ended May 29, 2010 (“Fiscal 2010”), May 30, 2009 (“Fiscal 2009”) and May 31, 2008 (“Fiscal 2008”). The details of the Company’s executive compensation programs are found in the CD&A.

28   2010 Proxy Statement

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The Grant of Plan-Based Awards table below sets forth information on equity awards granted by the Company to the NEOs during fiscal 2010 under the Long Term Incentive Plan (LTI Plan) and the possible payouts to the NEOs under the Executive Incentive Cash Bonus Plan (Annual Cash Bonus Plan) for fiscal 2010. The CD&A provides further details of grants under the LTI Plan, as well as the performance criteria under the Annual Cash Bonus Plan. (The LTI grants are discussed in the CD&A under the heading LTI Grants Awarded in 2010).

29   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

The Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End table below shows the option awards and stock awards that were outstanding as of May 29, 2010. The table shows both exercisable and unexercisable options. The table also shows share units and equity plan awards that have not vested.

30   2010 Proxy Statement

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End (continued)

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

This table provides information on the number and value of (1) options exercised in Fiscal 2010 (of which there were none), and (2) the vesting of restricted stock (on an aggregate basis).

31   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Pension Benefits

The Pension Benefit table which is below provides certain information on the retirement benefits available under each retirement plan to each NEO at the end of fiscal 2010. The retirement plans are described in the CD&A.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation table below provides certain information relating to our two defined contribution plans that provides for the deferral of compensation on a basis that is not tax-qualified.

The Company’s Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, which was terminated on fiscal 2007, allows certain employees to defer part or all of their Executive Incentive Cash Bonus payment each year. The Company matched any such deferral, up to 50 percent of the incentive cash bonus payment. The matching payment vests over 3 years and vesting is dependent upon the executive remaining employed with the Company. Amounts deferred are converted into units having the same value as the Company’s stock and are credited with amounts at the same rate as the Company’s dividend on its common stock. Units are converted into shares of the Company’s common stock at the time of distribution. 

The Committee approved The Herman Miller, Inc. Executive Equalization Retirement Plan for salary deferrals that began in January 2008. The plan allows all United States employees who have compensation above the statutory ceiling to defer income in the same proportion as if the statutory ceiling did not exist. The Company makes contributions to the plan such that the amounts in the plan “mirror” the amounts the Company would have contributed had the employee’s compensation not been above the statutory ceiling. Distributions from the plan are paid out in cash based on the deferral election specified by the participant.

32   2010 Proxy Statement

Potential Payments upon Termination, Death, Disability, Retirement or Change in Control

The following tables quantify both the estimated payments that would be made to each NEO in the event of his/her termination by the Company without cause, and in the event of his/her termination under circumstances that would trigger payments under the change in control agreements. The tables also provide information regarding the incremental amounts that would have vested and become payable on May 29, 2010 if a change in control occurred on that date or if the NEO’s employment had terminated on that date because of death, disability or retirement. The amounts potentially payable to each NEO in the event of separation without cause, death, disability, retirement or in connection with a change in control in which a termination occurs are illustrated below. The narrative that follows the tables gives more details concerning the plans and the circumstances under which either accelerated payment or vesting would occur.

Assumes termination occurs at end of Fiscal Year 2010 (May 29, 2010)

33   Herman Miller, Inc., and Subsidiaries

Potential Payments upon Termination, Death, Disability, Retirement or Change in Control (continued)