Opinion ID: 715716
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Teamster Welfare Benefits

Text: 6 Plaintiffs' claim of interference with their welfare benefits was properly dismissed. It is the law of this circuit that section 510 does not prohibit an employer from altering the package of medical benefits that it provides its employees, but only from interfering with an employee's use of the benefits provided. DeVoll v. Burdick Painting, Inc., 35 F.3d 408, 411 (9th Cir.1994). 6 Unlike pension benefits, welfare benefits do not vest. See 29 U.S.C. § 1051(1); Joanou v. Coca-Cola Company, 26 F.3d 96, 98 (9th Cir.1994); West v. Greyhound Corp., 813 F.2d 951, 954 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, employers remain free to unilaterally amend or eliminate such plans without considering the employees' interests. DeVoll, 35 F.3d at 411 (quoting Joanou, 26 F.3d at 98); see also Joan Vogel, Containing Medical and Disability Costs by Cutting Unhealthy Employees: Does Section 510 of ERISA Provide a Remedy?, 62 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1024, 1060 (1987) (noting that [a]n employer can deprive employees of benefits and avoid liability under section 510 simply by terminating the medical and disability benefit plan entirely, rather than selectively terminating the coverage of individual employees). As we held in West v. Greyhound Corp., 813 F.2d at 955, no action lies under section 510 for an employer's refusal to hire employees of its predecessor because the employees insist upon maintenance of previous benefit levels; existence of a present right is prerequisite to section 510 relief, and employees have no present right to future, anticipated welfare benefits. Id. at 954.