Watkins v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., F.3d (9th Cir. 1993), 17 EBC 1990
Article Abstract:
Jimmie Watkins sued Westinghouse Hanford Co. (WHC) for reducing monthly payments on a WHC-sponsored special voluntary retirement program he participated in. Watkins argued that WHC was prevented from modifying benefit levels, did not interpret the accrued pension benefits plan in compliance with ERISA and did not interpret the plan based on the company's excess provisions. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Watkins' estoppel claim but rejected the remaining claims, explaining that the accrued benefits pension plan was the only document to be interpreted.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Bixler v. Central Penn. Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund, 12 F.3d 1292 (3d Cir. 1993), 17 EBC 1934
Article Abstract:
Lucinda Bixler sued Drivers Inc. and the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund for denying medical coverage for her now-deceased husband and for misrepresentations that hampered her from making a COBRA election. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in favor of Mrs. Bixler, explaining that ERISA Section 404(a) allows a beneficiary or individual participant to directly sue for breach of fiduciary duty against ERISA plan trustees and administrators.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Simas v. Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, 6 F.3d 849 (1st Cir. 1993)
Article Abstract:
John Simas and James Gray sued their former employer Quaker Fabric Corp. for failing to provide them with severance benefits they believed they deserved under the Massachusetts tin parachute law. The court ruled in favor of Quaker, explaining that the parachute law created an employee benefit plan within the definition of ERISA which is therefore preempted by ERISA. Simas, Gray and Massachusett's appeal to a US Court of Appeal was not sustained.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Nursing homes-lifting the burden. Handle with care. Communicating with objects
- Abstracts: Staff buy-in. A question of life and death
- Abstracts: Preparation is vital: Workplace learning and performance professionals must use statistics to plan for the future
- Abstracts: Collaborative planning for training impact. Get a move on. Training for virtual teams: an investigation of current practices and future needs
- Abstracts: Tie merit increases to goal-setting and employer objectives. Managing strikes, minimizing loss