The brief urges the Court to overrule the Sixth Circuit decision that held that the company’s bargained for retiree health benefit was vested based on the Sixth Circuit’s long-standing presumption of vesting of such benefits despite the absence of any language in an agreement providing for such. (Other circuits have adopted a variety of approaches for evaluating the vesting issue, but none has applied the Sixth Circuit approach and the Third Circuit has essentially adopted a presumption that the benefit is not vested). The ERIC brief specifically argues that vesting should not be held to exist unless there is clear and unambiguous language providing for such.
A copy of the brief is available here.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be aware that all comments are moderated before posting. As a result, there may be a delay between the time you submit a comment and when it is posted.