Legal Opinion
Drutis v. Rand McNally & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided August 27, 2007No. 06-6380PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROGERS, Circuit Judge.
The question in this case is whether so-called “cash balance” pension plans violate 29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H)®, an anti-age-discrimination provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). “Cash balance” plans are defined benefit plans that are structured like defined contribution plans. The district court in this case held, among other things, that the cash balance plan adopted by defendants did not violate the anti-age discrimination statute in question. We agree, and therefore affirm.
I
The facts of this case are not disputed and the following…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- David Berger and Gerry Tsupros, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Xerox Corporation Retirement Income Guarantee PlanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
- Cooper, Kathi v. IBM Personal PensionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
- Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers & AgentsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- Richards v. Fleetboston Financial Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2006
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Kendall v. Employees Retirement Plan of Avon ProductsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Taylor v. KeyCorpCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater HoustonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers & AgentsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- Amara v. Cigna Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2008
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.