Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz
| Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 19, 2004 Decided June 7, 2004 | |
| Full case name | Central Laborers' Pension Fund, Petitioner v. Thomas E. Heinz, et al. |
| Citations | 541 U.S. 739 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2230; 159 L. Ed. 2d 46 |
| Holding | |
| ERISA §204(g) prohibits a plan amendment expanding the categories of postretirement employment that triggers suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits already accrued. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous court |
| Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Ginsburg |
Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739 (2004), is a case that was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on 19 April 2004. The question it presented was whether Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act contradicts Section 203(a)(3)(B).
See also
[edit]Further reading
[edit]- Clarkson, Michael; Thomas, Ann (2004). "Recent Developments in Employer-Employee Relations". Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal. 40: 369. ISSN 1543-3234.
- Ryan, Priscilla E.; Sharara, Norma M. (2004). "Employee Benefits". Tax Lawyer. 58: 1055. ISSN 0040-005X.
External links
[edit]- Text of Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739 (2004) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |