The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Friday, June 27, 2003
Argument: Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Decision: Tuesday, March 2, 2004
Issues: Economic Activity, Employee Retirement Income Security Act

Advocates

James Al Holifield, Jr. (argued the cause for Petitioners)
Conrad M. Troutman (argued the cause for Respondent)
Matthew D. Roberts (argued the cause for Petitioners, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Raymond Yates owned a corporation with a profit sharing/pension plan. Yates borrowed money from the plan at a set interest. After he had repaid the loan to his profit sharing/pension plan, Yates' creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against him. They asked the bankruptcy court to set aside the repayment (interest included) and give it to the creditors.

Yates argued that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the interest from the profit sharing/pension plan could not be seized (except for loans to participants). The bankruptcy court disagreed and granted Yates' creditors' requests. The court reasoned that as the sole owner of the business, Yates was an employer under ERISA, not a "participant." The plan's prohibition on interest seizure therefore did not apply. A federal district court and a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel both affirmed.

Question

Is the owner of a business a "participant" in a profit sharing/pension plan established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)?

Conclusion

Yes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the Court's unanimous opinion holding that a business owner, such as Yates, qualifies as a "participant" in an ERISA pension plan. The Court reasoned that this was the intent of Congress and that the act's text verifies this. In a business in which an ERISA plan covers employees, the employer can essentially qualify as an employee and receive the plan's protections. In light of this, the Court sent Yates' bankruptcy issues to a lower court for resolution.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Yates, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Employee Retirement Income Security
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a special concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas
Wrote the majority opinion
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Yates v. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1 (2004),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_458/>
(last visited ).