Document: 541 U.S. 739 CENTRAL LABORERS' PENSION FUNDv.HEINZ ET AL. No. 02-891. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 19, 2004. Decided June 7, Respondents (collectively, Heinz) are retired participants in a multiemployer pension plan (hereinafter Plan) administered by petitioner. Heinz from the construction industry after accruing enough credits to qualify for early retirement payments under "service only" scheme that pays him same monthly benefit he would have received had at usual age. The Plan prohibits such beneficiaries certain "disqualifying employment" they retire, suspending until stop forbidden work. When retired, defined include job as worker but not supervisor, took. In 1998, expanded its definition any and stopped Heinz's when did leave his supervisor's job. sued recover suspended benefits, claiming suspension violated "anti-cutback" rule Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA), which amendment reduce participant's "accrued benefit," ERISA § 204(g), 29 U. S. C. 1054(g). District granted judgment on pleadings, Seventh Circuit reversed, holding imposing new conditions rights benefits already accrued violates anti-cutback rule. Held: 204(g) expanding categories postretirement employment triggers payment accrued. Pp. 743-751. (a) provision is crucial ERISA's central object protecting employees' justified expectations receiving been promised, see Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 882, 887. amendments "the effect . eliminating or reducing an benefit." 1054(g)(2). question here whether Plan's effect. Although statutory text helpful it might be, clear matter common sense has suffered amendment. allowing supplement income, reasonably relied plan's terms planning retirement. 1998 undercut reliance, paying only if accepted substantial curtailment opportunity do kind work knew. There no way that, practical sense, this change could be viewed shrinking value promised benefits. 743-745. (b) technical responses rejected. To give constricted reading urged Plan—applying directly altering payment's nominal dollar amount paid unaltered—would take textual force majeure, certainly something closer irresistible than language 1002(23)(A) ordinarily "expressed form annual commencing normal age." And argument 204(g)'s "eliminat[e] reduc[e]" does apply mere suspensions misses point. permits elements itself condition may imposed right receive money date limited narrowing right. 745-746. (c) This Court's conclusion confirmed Internal Revenue Service regulation adopts approved here. 746-748. (d) 203(a)(3)(B), U.S.C. 1053(a)(3)(B)—which provides "shall treated forfeitable solely because plan" suspends like respondents employed geographic area covered plan—is irrelevant Section 203(a) addresses entirely distinct concept forfeitures. read most simply context, 203(a)(3)(B) statement about can offered up front, authorization adopt retroactive amendments. 748-751. 303 F. 3d 802, affirmed. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. BREYER, filed concurring opinion, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR GINSBURG, JJ., joined, post, p. 751. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 2 Thomas Goldstein argued cause With briefs were Jeffery M. Wilday, Patrick J. O'Hara, Amy Howe. 3 John P. Elwood States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney O'Connor, Deputy Kneedler, Kenneth L. Greene, A. Dudeck, Jr. 4 David Gossett respondents. Charles Rothfeld Gery R. Gasick.* 5 JUSTICE SOUTER 6 few exceptions, (ERISA) 88 Stat. 858, trigger We hold prohibited. 7 * Richard Schmitt petitioner Central Laborers' Pension Fund. Like other Plan, worked Illinois before retiring, 1996, pension. age, thus subsidized benefit, since discounted even though start earlier likely continue longer average period. 8 entitlement subject case focuses: service pensions retire. accept their will work.1 "a union non-union worker." Brief 6. cover supervisory capacity, however, took supervisor continued pay out benefit. 9 disqualifying was "`in capacity (either worker).'" Ibid. amended warned suspended. kept working, paying. 10 ground applying so suspend On cross-motions pleadings Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(c), reversed divided panel Circuit, held violation 802 (CA7 2002). certiorari, 540 1045 (2003), order resolve resulting split, Spacek Maritime Assn., 134 283 (CA5 1998), now affirm. II 11 doubt centrality employers promise them. 12 "Nothing requires establish employee plans. Nor mandate what must provide choose plan. does, seek ensure employees left emptyhanded once guaranteed them [W]hen Congress enacted ERISA, `wanted mak[e] sure upon retirement—and fulfilled whatever required obtain vested benefit—he actually it.'" 887 (1996) (quoting Nachman Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 359, 375 (1980); citations omitted). 13 See also Langbein & B. Wolk, Law 121 (3d ed. 2000) Wolk) ("The problem addressed loss previously promised"). 14 object, (with two exceptions concern here2) "[t]he participant decreased ." 1054(g)(1). After some initial Wolk 164, 1984 made does. Equity 1984, 301(a)(2), 98 1451. Now with respect attributable shall benefits." 15 Hence here: "eliminating benefit" earned passed? statute, admittedly, answering question; explicitly define "early rather circularly defines individual's determined 1002(23)(A). Still, looks here, we agree "[a] cannot understood without reference those placing materially greater restrictions receipt `reduces' just surely decrease size payment." 3d, 805. income employment, being reasonable how, B 16 ones, beginning suggestion "benefit" devalued nothing more "defined periodic legally obliged pay," Petitioner 28, applies retiree's payment. A $100 month, say, reduced postaccrual payments, long affects figure defining paid, all. Under reading, say resulted permanent payments. But us quoted observation age," 17 contends reduc[e] seems rest distinction between one hand, "suspend" other, No denies enforceable permissible ERISA: set accrues survive rule, sanction Because considered valuing moment accrues, later according eliminate value. real accrued; right? given case, invoked justify actual imposed, becomes less valuable, irrespective suspension. C 18 Our (IRS) 204(g). Title I impose substantive legal requirements plans (including rule), Code eligibility preferential tax treatment compliance many requirements. Benefits 47, 171-173 (S. Sacher et al. eds., 2d 2000). result "curious duplicate structure" nearly verbatim replication whole sections ERISA. 91, ¶ section, showing substantially identical 26 §411(d)(6).3 duplication explains Reorganization 1978, 101, 43 Fed. Reg. 47713 (1978), 92 3790, giving Secretary Treasury ultimate authority interpret these overlapping provisions. 92, IRS [regulatory] jurisdiction over accrua[l] vesting"). pertinent regulations refer version equal 53 26050, 26053 (1988) section 411 applicable provisions [ERISA] I"). 19 formally taken position keep specifying advance accrual availability 411(d)(6) protected [is] who satisfy objective CFR 1.411(d)-4, A-6(a)(1) (2003). Without running afoul example, outset single sum distribution conditioned execution covenant compete. A-6(a)(2). perfectly free modify deal offering employees, goes compensation continued, future employment: "may yet A-2(a)(1). treat very differently, turn part adding categorical: addition 411(d)(6). Also, (whether objective) existing results further restriction 411(d)(6)." A-7. So far concerned, then, flatly attaching earned. 20 has, told stories. points Manual supports position: "[a]n reduces IRC account [a provision] violate 4.72.14.3.5.3(7) (May 4, 2001), available http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch50s19.html. says routinely definitions retroactively neither unreasoned manual nor allegedly longstanding agency practice trump formal procedural history necessary law. generally Note, Omnibus Taxpayers' Bill Rights Act: Remedy Political Placebo? 86 Mich. Rev. 1787, 1799-1801 (discussing status Manual). Speaking authoritative voice, interpretation today.4 III 21 criticizing Circuit's rely heavily separate 1053(a)(3)(B). Here claim find specific amend retroactively, general prohibition 22 derived employer contributions period [beneficiaries are] industry, trade craft, plan, commenced." 23 arguments notwithstanding, us, least reasons. 24 First, matter, different concept: belongs sets forth (the rate earns put account), 1054, whereas regulates vesting process employee's already-accrued irrevocably property), 1053. Corp., S., 366, n. ("Section It extent virtue having age length specified 203(a)(2), forfeiture"). sure, concepts overlap effect, act raise both concerns. non sequitur conclude constitute prohibited forfeiture 203, reduction 204. Just failed forbid mean allowed it. 25 Second, front enforced amounting forfeiture, 203(a), 1053(a), reads "[e]ach nonforfeitable attainment global directive content plans; adds mandatory term all packages company offer. turn, explanation requirement. wanted allow agreement kinds 1, supra, recognized seen rendering improperly forfeitable. Accordingly, narrow circumstances. critically present purposes, speaks scope plans, permissibility fact allows going logical bearing analysis how treats imposition (implicitly) bargained-for already.5 help Plan.6 27 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal States, Southeast Southwest Areas Fund Nyhan, James Condon, Franczyk, Jr.; National Coordinating Committee Multiemployer Plans Donald Capuano, Sally Tedrow, McIntire. Mary Ellen Signorille Melvin Radowitz AARP affirmance. amici Employment Lawyers Association Stephen Bruce Jeffrey Lewis; Society Human Resource Management Peter Kelly Stanley Strauss. adopted authorizing suspensions, motivated desire "to protect against used, subsidize low-wage hire retirees compete with, wages working plan." 120 Cong. Rec. 29930 (1974) (statement Sen. Williams regarding 203(a)(3)(B)). That why accepts "in 1053(a)(3)(B)(ii) cases where faces "substantial business hardship," 1082(c)(8), involving terminated 1441 "A satisfying described 412(c)(8) [of Code], [29 1441]." 411(d)(6)(A); §411(d)(6)(B) (clarifying benefits). Cf. 2,supra, accompanying (detailing 204(g)). Nothing today revisit tax-exempt past years reliance agency's representations gives Commissioner discretion decline decisions retroactively. 7805(b)(8) prescribe extent, any, ruling judicial decision administrative determination regulation) relating internal revenue laws applied effect"). doubtless appropriate occasion exercise authorize add associated employment. point contents bargain struck complete package For analogous reasons, 1.411(c)-1(f) (2003) unavailing. purpose allocating contributions, "[n]o adjustment permitted 203(a)(3)(B)." establishing pursuant affect actuarial beneficiary's total allocation calculations, accounted valuation. 3,supra. Far helping tends support our larger proposition condition, 28 whom CHIEF JUSTICE, O'CONNOR, GINSBURG join, concurring. join assumption foreclose Labor, Treasury, issue enlarge already-performed services. Christensen Harris County, 529 576, 589 (2000) (SOUTER, concurring).

Category: 7