Hughes Aircraft Company v. Jacobson

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Paul T. Cappuccio (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Lisa Schiavo Blatt (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)
Seth Kupferberg (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
97-1287
Petitioner: 
Hughes Aircraft Company
Respondent: 
Jacobson
Opinion: 
525 U.S. 432 (1999)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Hughes Aircraft Company v. Jacobson , 525 U.S. 432 (1999)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_1287)
Facts of the Case: 

Stanley I. Jacobson and other retired employees of Hughes Aircraft Company were beneficiaries of Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan. Jacobson and the others claimed in their class-action lawsuit that Hughes violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the federal pension protection law, when it amended the plan twice in response to a $1.2 billion dollar surplus. ERISA requires that some of the surplus be distributed to cover employees when a pension plan is terminated. Hughes' first amendment to the plan established an early retirement program that provided significant additional retirement benefits to certain eligible active employees. The second amendment disallowed new participants from contributing to the plan. Jacobson and others argued that Hughes had terminated one plan and started another by stopping its pension plan contributions. Thus, the company had used the plan's surplus to benefit new employees at the expense of the retirees. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court by finding that the early retirement program and noncontributory benefit structure were prohibited by the ERISA.

Question: 

Did an employer violate federal pension protection law when it amended its retirement plan by establishing an early retirement program and creating a noncontributory benefit structure for new participants?

Conclusion: 

No. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held Hughes did not violate the ERISA by establishing an early retirement program and creating a noncontributory benefit structure for new participants. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, said the plan amendments "did not affect the rights of pre-existing plan participants and Hughes did not use the surplus for its own benefit."

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Hughes Aircraft Company, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas