Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Souter
With few exceptions, the “anti-cutback” rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits any amendment of a pension plan that would reduce a participant’s “accrued benefit.” 88 Stat. 858, 29 U. S. C. § 1054(g). The question is whether the rule prohibits an amendment expanding the categories of postretirement employment that trigger suspension of payment of early retirement benefits already accrued. We hold such an amendment prohibited.
I
Respondents Thomas Heinz and Richard Schmitt (collectively, Heinz) are retired participants in a multiemployer pension plan…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINKSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Daniel A. Spacek v. The Maritime Association, I L a Pension Plan, and Trustees of the Agreement of TrustCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
- Thomas E. Heinz and Richard J. Schmitt, Jr. v. Central Laborers' Pension FundCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
3Cited by167 opinions
- Frommert v. ConkrightCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Nichols Ex Rel. Alcatel Network Systems Salaried Retirees Benefit Program v. Alcatel USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
- Young v. Verizon's Bell Atlantic Cash Balance PlanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Michael Patton v. Mfs/sun Life Financial Distributors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
- Amara v. CIGNA Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
162 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.