Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

882

OCTOBER TERM, 1995

Syllabus

LOCKHEED CORP. et al. v. SPINK

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 95-809. Argued April 22, 1996—Decided June 10, 1996

Because respondent Spink was 61 when petitioner Lockheed Corporation reemployed him in 1979, he was excluded from participation in Lockheed's retirement plan (Plan), as was then permitted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Section 9203(a)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (OBRA) repealed ERISA's age-based exclusion provision, and 9201 and 9202 amended ERISA and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), respectively, to prohibit age-based benefit accrual rules. To comply with OBRA, Lockheed made Spink and other previously excluded employees Plan members, but made clear that they would not receive credit for their pre-1988 service years. Lockheed subsequently added to the Plan two programs offering increased pension benefits to employees who would retire early in exchange for their waiver of any employment claims against Lockheed. Not wishing to waive any ADEA or ERISA claims, Spink declined to participate and retired without earning the extra benefits. He then filed suit, alleging among other things that Lockheed and petitioner board of directors members violated ERISA by amending the Plan to create the retirement programs, that petitioner Retirement Committee members violated ERISA by implementing the amended Plan, and that the OBRA amendments to ERISA and the ADEA required that Spink's pre-1988 service years be counted toward his benefits. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part. In finding the Plan amendments unlawful under ERISA 406(a)(1)(D)—which prohibits a fiduciary from causing a plan to engage in a transaction that transfers plan assets to, or involves the use of plan assets for the benefit of, a party in interest—the court decided that there was no need to address Lockheed's status as a fiduciary. It also found that Lockheed's refusal to credit Spink with his pre-1988 service years violated the OBRA amendments, which the court decided applied retroactively.

Held: 1. ERISA 406 does not prevent an employer from conditioning the receipt of early retirement benefits upon plan participants' waiver of employment claims. Pp. 887-895.

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007