Supreme Court of the United States
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen
March 6, 1995514 U.S. 73
Summary
Justice O’Connor delivered the unanimous opinion holding that a benefit-plan provision reserving amendment authority to “the Company” satisfies ERISA § 402(b)(3). The provision both identifies the person authorized to amend and establishes amendment by unilateral company decision as the required procedure. Corporate law supplies the rules for determining who may act for the company. The Court reversed and remanded for determination whether authorized persons actually approved or subsequently ratified the amendment terminating respondents’ benefits. It did not decide the remedy for a violation of § 402(b)(3). There were no separate opinions.
Holding
- Whether reserving amendment authority to “the Company” satisfies ERISA § 402(b)(3).. The reservation clause satisfies both the amendment-procedure requirement and the requirement for identifying persons with amendment authority.
- How amendment authority assigned to “the Company” is exercised.. Applicable corporate law principles determine who has authority to amend on the company’s behalf and whether an amendment was approved or subsequently ratified.
Docket 93-1935
Cited authorities
- 29 U.S.C. §§1101-1114
- 29 U.S.C. §§1021-1031
- 88 Stat. 875
- 29 U.S.C. § 1102
- 29 U.S.C. § 1002
- 29 U.S.C. § 1102
- 29 U.S.C. § 1104
- 29 U.S.C. §§1101-1114
Cited by
- Sharon Prouty v. the Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co. and C & S Wholesale Grocers Inc.
- Haslam v. Mclaughlin
- Turner v. Liberty Mutual Retirement Benefit Plan
- McCoy v. Raytheon Company
- Mary Ellen Ehlmann v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
- Donna Rhea v. Alan Ritchey, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan and Alan Ritchey, Inc.
- Coleman v. Brozen
- James W. Campbell, Plaintiff, Appellant v. Bankboston, N.a.; Bankboston Separation Pay Plan; Helen Drinan…