Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz

Docket No.: 02-891
Certiorari Granted: Dec 1 2003
Argued: April 19, 2004
Decided: June 7, 2004

Topics:

Employee Retirement Income Security, Economic Activity, Bill of Rights, Civil Procedure, EPA, ERISA, Eighth Amendment, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Fourth Amendment, Internal Revenue Code, Labor Department, Sixth Amendment, capital murder, criminal procedure, habeas, murder, pension plan, preemption

PartyNames: Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Thomas E. Heinz, et al.
Petitioner: Central Laborers' Pension Fund
Respondent: Thomas E. Heinz, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Citation: CA 7, 303 F.3d 802 QUESTION PRESENTED: ERISA's "anti-cutback" rule, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g), generally prohibits anypension plan amendment which has the effect of eliminating or reducing a participant's early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy withrespect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment. The Seventh Circuit, expressly acknowledging its direct conflict with a 1998 decision of the Fifth Circuit, held that a pension plan amendment which expands the types of post-retirement employment that trigger mandatorysuspension of early retirement benefits violates the anti- cutback rule when
Supreme Court Docket

Central Laborers' Pension Fund
v.
Thomas E. Heinz, et al.
541 U.S. 739 (2004)
Question Presented:

ERISA's "anti-cutback" rule, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g), generally prohibits anypension plan amendment which has the effect of eliminating or reducing a participant's early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy withrespect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment. The Seventh Circuit, expressly acknowledging its direct conflict with a 1998 decision of the Fifth Circuit, held that a pension plan amendment which expands the types of post-retirement employment that trigger mandatorysuspension of early retirement benefits violates the anti- cutback rule when applied to suspend the benefits of participants who retired before the amendment. The question presented is whether a "suspension" of early retirementbenefits pursuant to a multiemployer pension plan amendment is an "elimination" or a "reduction" of such benefits which would be prohibited by ERISA's anti-cutback rule. CERT. GRANTED: 12/1/03

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?

Note:

. CA 7, 303 F.3d 802

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 19, 2004

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Heinz, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)