Search the News Archive

Text of Sixth Circuit ADEA Opinion Being Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

Cline v. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., No. 00-3468 (6th Cir., July 22, 2002).

ERIC Urges Sixth Circuit to Apply 'Ordinary Principles of Contract Interpretation' Concerning Vesting of Retiree Healthcare Benefits

"[ERIC has] filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit urging the court to apply 'ordinary principles of contract interpretation' involving vesting of retiree health benefits following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett.... 'The Sixth Circuit potentially rehearing the Kelsey-Hayes case is an important opportunity to ensure a proper reading of the Supreme Court's Tackett ruling. For the first time in over 30 years, the Sixth Circuit is now writing on a blank slate when it comes to retiree health care benefits,' said ERIC President and CEO Annette Guarisco Fildes.... 'No reasonable employer should be deemed by implication to have unalterably committed itself to provide such uncertain and costly benefits for life,' [she] added."

Circuit Courts of Appeal Uphold Dismissal of 401(k) Fee Challenges Post-Hughes

"Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a complaint challenging a 401(k) plan's purportedly excessive recordkeeping, investment management and investment advisor fees under [ERISA]. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has also upheld the dismissal of complaints challenging 401(k) fees post-Hughes. These decisions have highlighted that plaintiffs challenging recordkeeping fees must allege how such fees were excessive in comparison to the services rendered."

Sixth Circuit Overturns District Court Approval of Enhancements to Retiree Health Care Benefits (PDF)

20 pages. "The arbitrator did not arguably construe or apply the 2002 CBA when he ordered TRW to restore the enhanced healthcare benefits that it offered its retirees from 2007 to 2012, and he exceeded his authority by interpreting the retirees' acceptance of TRW's 2007 offer of enhanced coverage as a modification of their prior agreement." [UAW v. TRW Automotive U.S., Nos. 18-1160/1161 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019)]

Supreme Court Again Tells Sixth Circuit to Rethink Retiree Health Benefits

"The justices once again rejected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's way of handling these disputes, which the justices said was rooted in inferences and assumptions and not the text of the applicable collective bargaining agreements. The result is a victory for CNH Industrial, which was sued for its attempt to modify the health-care benefits it provides for union retirees." [CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, No. 17-515 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2018, per curiam)]

Text of Unanimous Supreme Court Opinion, Vacating and Remanding Sixth Circuit Decision on Vesting of Retiree Health Benefits (PDF)

"We disagree with the Court of Appeals' assessment that the inferences applied in Yard-Man and its progeny represent ordinary principles of contract law. As an initial matter, Yard-Man violates ordinary contract principles by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits in all collective-bargaining agreements. That rule has no basis in ordinary principles of contract law.... Further compounding this error, the Court of Appeals has refused to apply general durational clauses to provisions governing retiree benefits.... The Court of Appeals also failed even to consider the traditional principle that courts should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises.... We reject the Yard-Man inferences as inconsistent with ordinary principles of contract law.... We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for that court to apply ordinary principles of contract law in the first instance." [M&G Polymers v. Tackett, No. 13-1010 (U.S. Jan. 26, 2015)]

Text of Sixth Circuit Opinion Remanding Retiree Health Benefit Case for Determination of Vesting in Accordance with Supreme Court Decision (PDF)

"[W]hile the Supreme Court's decision prevents us from presuming that 'absent specific durational language referring to retiree benefits themselves, a general durational clause says nothing about the vesting of retiree benefits,' we also cannot presume that the absence of such specific language, by itself, evidences an intent not to vest benefits or that a general durational clause says everything about the intent to vest ... [We] remand so the district court can decide, among other things, outside the 'shadow of Yard-Man,' [1] what documents make up the parties' Agreements; [2] whether reference to extrinsic evidence is appropriate; and [3] whether the Agreements, and any extrinsic evidence that may be considered, vests with Retirees lifetime contribution-free health care benefits. The district court should use ordinary principles of contract law to answer these questions, without a 'thumb on the scale' in favor of either party." [Tackett v. M&G Polymers, No. 12-3329 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016)]

Text of Sixth Circuit Opinion: Forum Selection Clauses in ERISA Plans are Enforceable in Breach of Fiduciary Duty Actions as Well as Claims for Benefits (PDF)

"Appellant Roger Smith appeals the district court's dismissal of his claims without prejudice because of improper venue. The district court held that the venue selection clause in the [ERISA-governed] AEGON Pension Plan requiring that suit be brought in federal court in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was enforceable and applied to Smith's claims.... We AFFIRM.... [N]one of the statutory provisions Smith cites provides a reason not to apply the venue selection provision to both his fiduciary and benefits claims. The venue selection provision applies to all actions brought by a participant or beneficiary, not just claims for benefits." [Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan, No.13-5492 (6th Cir. Oct. 14, 2014)]

Sixth Circuit Must Rethink Whether ERISA Preempts Michigan Health Insurance Tax Law

"The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated a federal appellate panel's holding that a Michigan law designed to generate revenue to pay the state's Medicaid obligations was not preempted by ERISA. The High Court granted a petition filed by the Self Insurance Institute of America, Inc. (SIIA) and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." [Self-Insurance Inst. of America v. Snyder, No. 12-2264 (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014; cert. granted Mar. 7, 2016)]

Text of Sixth Circuit Opinion: Subrogation Provision in SPD Is Enforceable; Finding of Liability Not Required for Subrogation to Apply (PDF)

"Moore claims that the grant of summary judgment should be reversed because genuine issues of material fact exist as to three issues: [1] whether the SPD is a controlling plan document, making the subrogation provision enforceable; [2] whether the settlement funds were wholly 'excess and separate' from the medical costs the Board seeks to recover and therefore exempt from subrogation; and [3] whether subrogation applies in the absence of a judicial finding or admission of liability by the third party. Because each of these issues poses a legal question rather than a factual dispute, and because the district court's resolution of the legal issues was correct ... the court properly granted summary judgment in the NEI Board's favor." [Nat. Elevator Inc. Health Benefit Plan v. Moore, No.14-04048 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015)]