Summary

Thurgood Marshall Mead Corporation v. Tilley — Dissenting Opinion

Respondents have far more than an expectancy interest in early retirement benefits. Although the benefits may not be "accrued" in the ERISA sense, respondents have earned them under the Plan by serving over 30 years with Mead, and their right to payment is contingent only upon their election to retire after reaching age 62. [2] Cf. Blessitt v. Retirement Plan for Employees of Dixie Engine Co., 848 F.2d 1164, 1174, n. 22 (CA11 1988) (" [A] n employee is entitled to expect that early retirement provisions in a plan will not be deleted by amendment shortly before the employee qualifies") .
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Mead Corporation v. Tilley — Dissenting Opinion

For example, if 1,000 employees are covered by a trust forming part of a pension plan, 300 of whom have satisfied all the requirements for a monthly pension, while the remaining 700 employees have not yet completed the required period of service, contingent obligations to such 700 employees have nevertheless arisen which constitute 'liabilities' within the meaning of that term.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature