Lockheed Corp. v. Spink

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 22, 1996
Decided June 10, 1996
Full case nameLockheed Corp., et al. v. Spink
Docket no.95-809
Citations517 U.S. 882 (more)
116 S. Ct. 1783; 135 L. Ed. 2d 153; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3717
Case history
PriorSpink v. Lockheed Corp., 60 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1995); cert. granted, 516 U.S. 1087 (1996).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg; Souter and Breyer (all but Part III-B)
Concur/dissentBreyer, joined by Souter
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(D)

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.[1]

Facts

Mr. Spink was denied full benefits from Lockheed Corporation after being rehired in 1988. He claimed that an amendment of the plan, to exclude people over 61, violated § 406(a)(1)(D) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),[2] 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.

Judgment

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that employers could amend plans. They were not bound by fiduciary duties while acting as sponsors.

Justices Breyer and Souter dissented in part, preferring to withhold expression of any view on the proposition that "the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction."

See also

References

  1. ^ Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996).
  2. ^ 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(D).