1989 United States Supreme Court case
| Mead Corp. v. Tilley | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued February 22, 1989 Decided June 5, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Mead Corp. v. Tilley |
| Docket no. | 87-1868 |
| Citations | 490 U.S. 714 (more)109 S. Ct. 2156; 104 L. Ed. 2d 796; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2709 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Tilley v. Mead Corp., 815 F.2d 989 (4th Cir. 1987); cert. granted, 488 U.S. 815 (1988). |
| Subsequent | Tilley v. Mead Corp., 927 F.2d 756 (4th Cir. 1991); cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1212 (1992). |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. | |
Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U.S. 714 (1989), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.
Facts
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (August 2017) |
Judgment
Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the Court, held that only after an employer has met PBGC conditions to fund plans can it recoup ‘excess’ funds that would not need to cover promised benefits.
Justice John P. Stevens dissented.
In my opinion the early retirement benefits that respondents seek are contingent liabilities that under both ERISA and the Plan must be satisfied before plan assets revert to the employer. Section 4044(d) of ERISA provides that residual assets of a plan may revert to the employer only if three conditions are satisfied, including that "all liabilities of the plan to participants and their beneficiaries have been satisfied" and "the plan provides for such a distribution in these circumstances." 29 U.S.C. § 1344(d). Under the Plan, "ny surplus remaining in the Retirement Fund, due to actuarial error, after the satisfaction of all benefit rights or contingent rights accrued under the Plan, . . . shall . . . be returnable to ." App. 63 (Plan, Art. XIII, § 4(f)).
See also
| Pension sources | |
|---|---|
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 §1003(a) | |
| ERISA 1974 §§1022-1133 and 1052-9 | |
| Guidry v Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund 493 US 365 (1990) | |
| Lockheed Corp v Spink 517 US 882 (1996) | |
| Mead Corp v Tilley 490 US 714 (1989) | |
| ERISA 1974 §§1081-1102 and 1140 | |
| Peacock v Thomas 516 US 349 (1996) | |
| ERISA 1974 §§1102-1132 | |
| Donovan v Bierwirth 680 F2d 263 (1982) | |
| Varity Corp v Howe 516 US 489 (1996) | |
| Local 144, Nursing Home Pension v Demisay 508 US 581 (1992) | |
| Labor Management Reporting and Disc Act of 1959 §§401-531 | |
| ERISA 1974 §1144 | |
| Shaw v Delta Air Lines, Inc 463 US 85 (1983) | |
| Metropolitan Life Insurance Co v Massachusetts 471 US 724 (1985) | |
| FMC Corp v Holliday 498 US 52 (1990) | |
| Ingersoll-Rand Co v McClendon 498 US 133 (1990) | |
| Egelhoff v Egelhoff 532 US 141 (2001) | |
| Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v Moran 536 US 355 (2002) | |
| ERISA 1974 §§1102-3 and LMRA 1947 §186(c)(5)(B) | |
| NLRB v Amax Coal Co 453 US 322 (1981) | |
| See US labor law and pensions |
References
External links
- Text of Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U.S. 714 (1989) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)