By: Mark Casciari and Jules Levenson
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court has held unanimously that a 1980 amendment to ERISA means that a pension benefit plan need not be established by a church in order to be exempt from ERISA rules, including most importantly, its funding rules. The decision shows that most courts misread…
By: Ronald Kramer, Justin T. Curley, and Barbara Borowski,
Employers may unwittingly create implied vested contractual rights to retirement and healthcare benefits for their employees in perpetuity.
In Sonoma County Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, No. 10-17873 (February 26, 2013), the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of…
By: Mark Casciari and Barbara Borowski
In Cloutier v. State, No. 2010-714, 2012 N.H. LEXIS 42 (N.H.Mar. 30, 2012), a retired probate judge contested the validity of certain changes that the State of New Hampshire made to the Judicial Retirement Plan.
Under the prior retirement statutes, “as additional compensation for services rendered and to…
By: Sheryl Skibbe and Kathleen Cahill-Slaught
On February 1, 2012, an Arizona Superior Court handed a defeat to state employers in their effort to transfer a greater share of the cost of retirement benefits to current employees. In Barnes v. Arizona State Retirement System, et al., (Ariz. Super.Ct., No. CV- 2011-011638), the court…
By: Mark Casciari and Barbara Borowski
In Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange, 52 Cal. 4th 1171 (Cal. 2011), an employee association filed a lawsuit in the federal court contesting the validity of certain changes that Orange County California made to health benefits for retired employees. From 1985 through…
