Cases by Issue - Employee Retirement Income Security Act

Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

05-260

Petitioner

Joel Sereboff, et ux.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

547 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Monday, November 28, 2005

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Decided

Monday, May 15, 2006

Advocates

Gregory S. Coleman (argued the cause for Respondent)

Peter K. Stris (argued the cause for Petitioners)

James A. Feldman (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Mr. and Mrs. Sereboff held a health insurance policy with Mid Atlantic Medical Services that was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). If a beneficiary is injured, Mid Atlantic pays for all covered medical expenses. However, the plan also has a provision that requires the beneficiaries to reimburse Mid Atlantic when an injury has been caused by a third party and the beneficiary receives compensation from that third party. In this case, the Sereboffs were injured in an automobile accident caused by a third party. After they settled their suit against that third party, Mid Atlantic filed suit in federal district court under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA to recover the money it had spent on medical expenses. 502(a)(3) provides that a health insurer may bring suit "to obtain ... appropriate equitable relief ... to enforce ... the terms of the plan." The Sereboff's objected, arguing that the sort of reimbursement provision at issue in this case was not "equitable" because the Sereboffs had not had the funds in their possession when they agreed to the plan. Both the district court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, siding with Mid Atlantic.

Question

Is a health insurance plan that requires the beneficiary to reimburse the insurer for its expenses when the beneficiary recovers damages from a third party that is responsible for the injury "equitable" under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

Yes. Chief Justice John Roberts, for a unanimous Supreme Court, pointed to Barnes v. Alexander, 232 U.S. 117 (1914), in deciding this case. In Barnes, an attorney's promise to pay two other attorneys a portion of the money he collected from a case that had yet to be decided was held legally binding. Roberts wrote that equity had once required a contract to specify an existing fund from which money would be paid (which could not have happened in this case), but that after Barnes this was no longer the case. Roberts wrote that "the most (the Sereboffs) can muster ... are several state cases predating Barnes and a single decision that rests .. on the simple conclusion that a contractual provision purporting to secure an equitable lien did not properly do so.."

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-891

Petitioner

Central Laborers' Pension Fund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thomas E. Heinz, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

541 U.S. 739 (2004)

Granted

Monday, December 1, 2003

Argued

Monday, April 19, 2004

Decided

Monday, June 7, 2004

Advocates

John P. Elwood (argued the cause for Petitioner, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Thomas C. Goldstein (argued the cause for Petitioner)

David M. Gossett (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

Thomas Heinz worked as a construction worker for 20 years, then retired. Upon retirement, he began to receive pension payments from the Central Laborers' Pension Plan. He continued to receive the pension after he took another job as a supervisor in the construction industry. The pension plan had a list of occupations that a recipient could not work in while receiving pension payments, but construction supervisors were not included. After two years, however, Central Laborers' Pension amended the list of prohibited professions to include construction supervisors. As a result, Heinz stopped receiving his pension payment. He and Richard Schmitt, a friend who was in the same situation, filed suit in federal district court. They claimed that the amendment, because it was passed after they had already started receiving the benefits, violated the "anti-cutback" provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. ERISA states that amendments to a pension plan may not decrease the "accrued benefit of a participant." Because the amendment barred them from receiving payments that they were otherwise eligible for, Heinz and Schmitt claimed that it had reduced their "accrued benefit." Central Laborers' Pension, however, argued that the men were still eligible to receive the same pension, they just could not receive it while working as construction supervisors. Because the value of the plan itself had not been changed, only the stipulations for receiving it, the pension plan managers argued that the amendment did not violate ERISA.

The federal district court sided with the pension plan. A divided Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel, however, reversed the decision, writing that "an amendment placing materially greater restrictions on the receipt of the benefit 'reduces' the benefit just as surely as a decrease in the size of the monthly benefit payment."

Question

Did Central Laborers' Pension violate the "anti-cutback" provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when it added to a list of positions that temporarily disqualified pension holders from receiving their benefits?

Conclusion

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

Yes. The Court unanimously held that the amendment to the plan had narrowed Heinz's rights to the benefits promised him at the time he retired, and that such a narrowing violated ERISA. Justice David H. Souter, in the Opinion of the Court, wrote, "'[A] participant's benefits cannot be understood without reference to the conditions imposed on receiving those benefits.' ... We simply do not see how, in any practical sense, this change of terms could not be viewed as shrinking the value of Heinz's pension rights and reducing his promised benefits."

Yates v. Hendon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-458

Petitioner

Raymond B. Yates, M.D., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan, and Raymond B. Yates, Trustee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

William T. Hendon, Trustee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

541 U.S. 1 (2004)

Granted

Friday, June 27, 2003

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Advocates

Matthew D. Roberts (argued the cause for Petitioners, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Conrad M. Troutman (argued the cause for Respondent)

James Al Holifield, Jr. (argued the cause for Petitioners)

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

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

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.

Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:54:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-469

Petitioner

Black & Decker Disability Plan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nord

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

538 U.S. 822 (2003)

Argued

Monday, April 28, 2003

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Advocates

Lisa S. Blatt (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)

Lawrence D. Rohlfing (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Lee T. Paterson (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

With the recommendation of his doctor, Kenneth Nord filed for disability benefits with his employer of 25 years, Kwikset Corp., a company owned by Black & Decker Corp. After the company denied his claim, Nord asked for a review of the denial. A doctor hired by the company determined that Nord could in fact perform the duties required by his job and was therefore ineligible for benefits, despite determinations to the contrary by Nord's physician, his orthopedic surgeon and a Black & Decker human resource representative. Nord sued to have the decision reversed, claiming that the company's preference of its doctor's opinion over the opinions of the other physicians violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The district court ruled in favor of Black & Decker Corp. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

Question

Under ERISA, are companies required to defer to the decision of a disability claimant's personal physician?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Black & Decker Disability Plan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that plan administrators are not obliged to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians. The Court reasoned that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied a "treating physician rule" because nothing in ERISA gave rise to such a rule. Justice Ginsburg wrote, "courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimant's physician; nor may courts impose on plan administrators a discrete burden of explanation when they credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating physician's evaluation."

Great-West Life and Annuity Ins. v. Knudson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-1786

Petitioner

Great-West Life and Annuity Ins.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Knudson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

534 U.S. 204 (2002)

Argued

Monday, October 1, 2001

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 2002

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (Argued the cause for the respondents)

James F. Jorden (On behalf of the petitioners)

Paul R. Q. Wolfson (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1992, a car accident rendered Janette Knudson a quadriplegic. At that time, Knudson was covered by the Health and Welfare Plan for Employees and Dependents of Earth Systems, Inc. (the Plan), which covered $411,157.11 of her medical expenses, most of which were paid by Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. The Plan contains a reimbursement provision, which gives it the right to recover from a beneficiary any payment for benefits paid by the Plan that the beneficiary is entitled to recover from a third party. After Knudson filed a state-court tort action to recover from the manufacturer of her car and others, she negotiated a settlement that earmarked $13,828.70 to satisfy Great-West's reimbursement claim. Great-West then filed an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to enforce the Plan's reimbursement provision by requiring Knudson to pay the Plan $411,157.11 of any proceeds recovered from third parties. The District Court granted Knudson summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that that judicially decreed reimbursement for payments made to a beneficiary of an insurance plan by a third party is not equitable relief authorized by ERISA.

Question

Does the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 authorize a suit to enforce a reimbursement provision by a health plan to recover from a beneficiary any proceeds paid by a third party?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Knudson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that because Great-West is seeking legal relief - the imposition of personal liability on Knudson for a contractual obligation to pay money - ERISA does not authorize this action. The Court reasoned that the suit, which sought relief under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, was not authorized under ERISA's catch-all provision authorizing equitable relief because the claim was for a legal remedy, or monetary damages. Justice Scalia wrote that "an injunction to compel the payment of money past due under a contract, or specific performance of a past due monetary obligation, was not typically available in equity." Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed dissents. Justices David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined in Justice Ginsburg's dissent.

Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-579

Petitioner

Harris Trust & Sav. Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

530 U.S. 238 (2000)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 2000

Decided

Monday, June 12, 2000

Advocates

Beth S. Brinkmann (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the petitioners)

Peter C. Hein (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Robert A. Long, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Section 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) bars a fiduciary of an employee benefit plan from causing the plan to engage in certain prohibited transactions with a "party in interest." Such a party encompasses entities that a fiduciary might be inclined to favor at the expense of the plan's beneficiaries. After the Ameritech Pension Trust (APT), an ERISA pension plan, allegedly entered into a transaction prohibited by ERISA with Salomon Smith Barney Inc., APT's fiduciaries sued Salomon under section 502(a)(3), which authorizes a fiduciary to bring a civil action to obtain appropriate equitable relief." Salomon arguing that section 502(a)(3) only authorizes a suit against the fiduciary who caused the plan to enter the prohibited transaction. Ultimately, the District Court held that ERISA provides a private cause of action against nonfiduciaries who participate in a prohibited transaction. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the authority to sue under section 502(a)(3) does not extend to a suit against a nonfiduciary "party in interest" to a transaction barred by section 406(a).

Question

Does section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which authorizes a "participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary" of a plan to bring a civil action to obtain "appropriate equitable relief" to redress violations of ERISA, extend to a suit against a nonfiduciary "party in interest" to a transaction barred by section 406(a)?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that Section 502(a)(3)'s authorization to a plan "participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary" to bring a civil action for "appropriate equitable relief" extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary "party in interest" to a prohibited transaction barred by section 406(a). "We reject," wrote Justice Thomas that, "absent a substantive provision of ERISA expressly imposing a duty upon a nonfiduciary party in interest, the nonfiduciary party may not be held liable under [section 502(a)(3)]." Justice Thomas concluded that "[section 502(a)(3)] itself imposes certain duties, and therefore that liability under that provision does not depend on whether ERISA's substantive provisions impose a specific duty on the party being sued."

Pegram v. Herdrich

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1949

Petitioner

Pegram

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Herdrich

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

530 U.S. 211 (2000)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 2000

Decided

Monday, June 12, 2000

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

James A. Feldman (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the petitioner)

James P. Ginzkey (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1991, Cynthia Herdrich, after feeling an unusual pain in her stomach, was examined by Lori Pegram, a physician affiliated with Carle Clinic Association, P. C., Health Alliance Medical Plans, Inc., and Carle Health Insurance Management Co., Inc. (hereafter Carle). Carle functions as a health maintenance organization (HMO) organized for profit. Pegram then required Herdrich to wait eight days for an ultrasound of her inflamed abdomen, which was to be performed at a facility staffed by Carle more than 50 miles away from Herdrich. During that period, Herdrich's appendix ruptured. Herdrich sued Carle, including Pegram, in State court for medical malpractice and two counts of fraud. Carle and Pegram, under the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), removed the case to federal court. Ultimately, Herdrich was only able to pursue one fraud count, which was amended to allege that Carle's HMO organization provisions rewarding its physician owners for limiting medical care, entailed an inherent or anticipatory breach of an ERISA fiduciary duty, because the terms create an incentive to make decisions in the physicians' self-interest, rather than the plan participants' exclusive interests. The District Court granted Carle's motion to dismiss on the ground that Carle was not acting as an ERISA fiduciary. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal.

Question

Are treatment decisions made by a health maintenance organization, acting through its physician employees, fiduciary acts within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that mixed treatment and eligibility decisions to delay medical treatment by sending a patient to a HMO owned facility, with adverse consequences, made by a health maintenance organization through its physician, are not fiduciary decisions under ERISA. Thus, Herdrich did not state an ERISA claim. "Herdrich's remedy -- return of profit to the plan for the participants' benefit -- would be nothing less than elimination of the for-profit HMO," wrote Justice Souter for the Court, "no HMO organization could survive without some incentive connecting physician reward with treatment rationing." Justice Souter noted that "the Federal Judiciary would be acting contrary to the congressional policy of allowing HMO organizations if it were to entertain an ERISA fiduciary claim portending wholesale attacks on existing HMOs solely because of their structure."

Hughes Aircraft Company v. Jacobson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1287

Petitioner

Hughes Aircraft Company

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jacobson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

525 U.S. 432 (1999)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1998

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1999

Advocates

Paul T. Cappuccio (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Lisa S. Blatt (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Seth Kupferberg (Argued the cause for the respondents)

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

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

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."

Geissal v. Moore Medical Corporation

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-689

Petitioner

Geissal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moore Medical Corporation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

524 U.S. 74 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1998

Advocates

James A. Feldman (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the petitioner)

Bradley J. Washburn (on behalf of the Respondents)

Bradley J. Washington (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Sheldon Weinhaus (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

S. Sheldon Weinhaus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to permit a beneficiary of an employer's group health plan to elect continuing coverage when he might otherwise lose that benefit because of a "qualifying event," such as the termination of employment. In 1993, when Moore Medical Corporation fired James Geissal, it told him that COBRA gave him the right to elect continuing coverage under Moore's health plan. Later, Moore informed Geissal that he was not entitled to COBRA benefits because he was already covered by a group plan through his wife's employer. Geissal then filed suit against Moore, alleging that Moore was violating CORBA by renouncing an obligation to provide continuing coverage. Ultimately, a Magistrate Judge concluded that an employee with coverage under another group health plan on the date he elects COBRA coverage is ineligible for COBRA coverage under 29 USC section 1162(2)(D)(i), which allows an employer to cancel such coverage as of "the date on which the qualified beneficiary first becomes, after the date of the election... covered under any other group health plan." The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does 29 USC section 1162(2)(D)(i) allow an employer to deny Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 continuation health coverage to a qualified beneficiary who is covered under another group health plan at the time he makes his COBRA election?

Conclusion

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

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that an employer may not deny COBRA continuation coverage under its health plan to an otherwise eligible beneficiary because he is covered under another group health plan at the time he elects COBRA coverage. "It is undisputed that both before and after James Geissal elected COBRA continuation coverage he was continuously a beneficiary of [his wife's employer's] group health plan," wrote Justice Souter, "[b]ecause he was thus covered before he made his COBRA election, and so did not 'first become' covered under the [his wife's employer's] plan after the date of election, Moore could not cut off his COBRA coverage under the plain meaning of [section 1162(2)(D)(i)]."

Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-370

Petitioner

Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ferbar Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 192 (1997)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1997

Decided

Monday, December 15, 1997

Advocates

Marsha S. Berzon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William F. Terheyden (on behalf of the Respondents)

Edward C. DuMont (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) requires employers who withdraw from underfunded multiemployer pension plans to pay a "withdrawal liability," which is dischargeable with an arranged series of periodic payments. The Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund (Fund) is a multiemployer pension plan for laundry workers. The Ferbar Corporation contributed to the Fund, but ultimately ceased doing so. Subsequently, the Fund's trustees demanded payment of Ferbar's withdrawal liability. The trustees decided to allow Ferbar to satisfy its obligation by making monthly payments. However, Ferbar never made a payment. Ultimately, the District Court granted Ferbar summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The court noted that the trustees had filed suit eight days too late. This was the date Ferbar was to make its first payment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the six-year period began to run on the date Ferbar withdrew from the Fund, in March 1985. Under this view, the trustees commenced suit nearly two years too late.

Question

Does the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980's six-year statute of limitations begin to run on a pension fund's action to collect unpaid withdrawal liability on the date the employer withdraws from the plan?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 29 U.S.C. 1451

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the MPPAA's six-year statute of limitations on a pension fund's action to collect unpaid withdrawal liability does not begin to run until the employer fails to make a payment on the schedule set by the fund. Justice Ginsburg reasoned that a plan's interest in receiving withdrawal liability does not ripen into a cause of action triggering the limitations period until the trustees determine and demand payment and the employer defaults on an installment. The Court's conclusion prompted a second decision, that a pension fund's action to collect unpaid withdrawal liability is timely as to any installment payments that came due during the six years preceding the suit, but payments that came due prior to that time are lost.

Inter Modal Rail Employees Association v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-491

Petitioner

Inter Modal Rail Employees Association

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

520 U.S. 510 (1997)

Argued

Monday, March 17, 1997

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1997

Advocates

Cornelia T. L. Pillard (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Richard E. Schwartz (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

James D. Holzhauer (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Employees of Santa Fe Terminal Services, Inc. (SFTS), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. (ATSF), were entitled to pension, health and welfare benefits under the terms of their collective bargaining agreements. These benefit plans were subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In 1990, ATSF awarded the work performed by SFTS to In Terminal Services (ITS), and terminated those SFTS employees unwilling to continue work with ITS. The benefit plan offered by ITS was less favorable than the SFTS plan, and SFTS employees brought suit under, alleging that they had been discharged "for the purpose of interfering with the attainment" of rights to which they would have "become entitled under [their SFTS] plan." ERISA Section 510. After the District Court dismissed the Section 510 claims, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated the employees' pension claims because Section 510 prevented interference with vested rights, but dismissed the employees' welfare benefit claims because such benefits did not vest.

Question

Does Section 510 of ERISA bar interference only with vested rights?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Inter Modal Rail Employees Association, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

No. The plain language of Section 510 indicates that the applicability of its interference clause is not limited to vested rights. Congress used the word "plan" to refer to both pension and welfare benefits, and at the same time indicated that welfare plans are exempt from ERISA's stringent vesting requirements. This statutory language forecloses the possibility that Congress meant to limit the protections of Section 510 to vested rights. The Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for determination of whether the fact that the SFTS employees were eligible for welfare benefits meant that they had already "attained" such rights, so that any subsequent actions taken by SFTS could not "interfere" with the "attainment of . . . right[s] . . . under the plan."

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-809

Petitioner

Lockheed Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Spink

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

517 U.S. 882 (1996)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1996

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1996

Advocates

Richard P. Bress (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae)

Gordon E. Krischer (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Theresa M. Traber (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Lockheed Corporation hired Paul L. Spink when he was sixty-one. He was excluded from participation in Lockheed's retirement program. Later changes in federal law required Lockheed to add Spink to the retirement program. Lockheed added Spink, but refused accrued benefits for the years he had worked at Lockheed before federal law changed. Lockheed also offered an increased pension benefit to employees who would retire early in exchange for their waiver of any employment claims against the corporation. Spink refused to be added without earning the extra benefits for the previous years he had worked. Spink filed suit alleging he should receive full benefits. The District Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Spink. It held the law applied retroactively which would cover Spink.

Question

May a business offer early retirement benefits on the condition that an employee give up the right to sue over any job-related claim? Can the federal government retroactively apply retirement income benefit laws?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lockheed Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

Yes and no. In unanimous and 7-2 decisions, announced by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled that businesses may condition early retirement benefits on the forfeiture of the right to sue in a job-related claim. The Court also ruled that the government could not retroactively apply retirement income benefit laws.

Varity Corp. v. Howe

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-1471

Petitioner

Varity Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Howe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

516 U.S. 489 (1996)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1995

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1996

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United State, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondents)

H. Richard Smith (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Floyd Abrams (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Charles Howe and others used to work for Massey-Ferguson, Inc., a farm equipment manufacturer, and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Varity Corporation. These employees all were participants in, and beneficiaries of, Massey-Ferguson's self-funded employee welfare benefit plan, an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA protected plan that Massey- Ferguson administered itself. When certain divisions in Massey-Ferguson stared losing money, Varity decided to transfer them to a separately incorporated subsidiary, Massey Combines. Varity also persuaded the employees of the failing divisions to change employers and benefit plans, conveying the message that employees' benefits would remain secure when they transferred. Ultimately, the employees lost their nonpension benefits. The employees filed an action under ERISA, claim that Varity, through trickery, had led them to withdraw from their old plan and forfeit their benefits. The District Court found that Varity and Massey-Ferguson, acting as ERISA fiduciaries, had harmed plan beneficiaries through deliberate deception, which gave the employees to right to relief, including the reinstatement to the old plan. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Did the Varity Corporation and Massey-Ferguson, Inc. act their capacity as an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974fiduciary when they significantly and deliberately misled the beneficiaries? By doing so, did Varity and Massey-Ferguson violate the fiduciary obligations that ERISA imposes upon plan administrators? Does ERISA authorize a lawsuit in such cases?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Howe, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

Yes, yes, and yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that, under the specific factual circumstances, Varity and Massey-Ferguson acted in their capacity as an ERISA fiduciary when they significantly and deliberately misled the plan's beneficiaries, thereby violating their fiduciary obligations imposed by ERISA. Finding that ERISA's general purpose of protecting beneficiaries' interests also favors a reading that provides a remedy, Justice Breyer said that Varity and Massey-Ferguson violated the fiduciary obligations imposed upon the plan's administrator by ERISA, by knowingly and significantly deceiving the employees as to the financial viability of the new entity and the future of the new entity's benefits plan, in order to save the employer money at the expense of the beneficiaries and that they could thus be sued for equitable relief by the individual beneficiaries. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia joined.

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1935

Petitioner

Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schoonejongen et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 73 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1995

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1995

Advocates

Richard P. Bress (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Thomas M. Kennedy (on behalf of the Respondents)

Laurence Reich (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Curtiss-Wright Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-768

Petitioner

Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

513 U.S. 414 (1995)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1994

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1995

Advocates

Michael G. Bruton (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard K. Willard (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Harris Trust And Savings Bank, As Trustee Of The Sperry Master Retirement Trust No.2

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1074

Petitioner

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris Trust And Savings Bank, As Trustee Of The Sperry Master Retirement Trust No.2

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 86 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1993

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1993

Advocates

Howard G. Kristol (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence Kill (on behalf of the Respondent)

Christopher J. Wright (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Harris Trust And Savings Bank, As Trustee Of The Sperry Master Retirement Trust No.2, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Mertens v. Hewitt Associates

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1671

Petitioner

Mertens et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hewitt Associates

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 248 (1993)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1993

Advocates

Ronald J. Mann (as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Alfred H. Sigman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Steven H. Frankel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hewitt Associates, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Concrete Pipe & Products Of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust For Southern California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-904

Petitioner

Concrete Pipe & Products Of California, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Construction Laborers Pension Trust For Southern California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 602 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1993

Advocates

John S. Miller, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Dennis R. Murphy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Carol Connor Flowe (on behalf of the amicus curiae supporting the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Construction Laborers Pension Trust For Southern California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1802

Petitioner

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Darden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 318 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Advocates

George R. Ragsdale (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Marion G. Follin, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. The LTV Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-390

Petitioner

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

The LTV Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 633 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1990

Advocates

Lewis B. Kaden (on behalf of the Respondents)

Carol Connor Flowe (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1105

Petitioner

Guidry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 365 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Advocates

Eldon E. Silverman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph M. Goldhammer (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mead Corp. v. Tilley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1868

Petitioner

Mead Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tilley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 714 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1989

Advocates

Patrick F. McCartan (on behalf of Petitioner)

Clifford L. Harrison (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mead Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Massachusetts v. Morash

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-32

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 107 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Advocates

Jason Berger (on behalf of the Respondent)

Carl Valvo (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1054

Petitioner

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bruch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 101 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

David Silberman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Christopher J. Wright (as Amicus Curiae supporting Respondents)

Martin Wald (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Laborers Tr. Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Conc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2079

Petitioner

Laborers Tr. Fund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Advanced Lightweight Conc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

484 U.S. 539 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Advocates

Michael B. Roger (on behalf of Petitioners)

Mark S. Ross (on behalf of Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae; in support of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Advanced Lightweight Conc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-9

Petitioner

Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Russell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 134 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1985

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 24, 1985

Decided

Thursday, June 27, 1985

Advocates

Brad N. Baker (on behalf of Respondent)

John E. Nolan, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2157

Petitioner

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Central Transport, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 559 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Patrick A. Moran (on behalf of the Respondents)

Joshua I. Schwartz (as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioners)

Russell N. Luplow (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Central States Pension Fund v. Central Transp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-2157

Petitioner

Central States Pension Fund

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Central Transp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 559 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-245

Appellee

R. A. Gray & Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 83-291

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 717 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1984

Advocates

Thomas M. Triplett (on behalf of the Appellees)

Baruch A. Fellner (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1943

Petitioner

Alessi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-193

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 504 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Warren J. Casey (on behalf of Appellees in 79-1943)

Laurence Reich (on behalf of Respondent in 80-193)

Theodore Sachs (on behalf of Appellants in 79-1943)

Marc C. Gettis (on behalf of Petitioners in 80-193)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1557

Petitioner

Nachman Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 359 (1980)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1980

Advocates

Henry Rose (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert W. Gettleman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

M. Jay Whitman (on behalf of Respondent UAW)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None