Document: 503 U.S. 181 112 S.Ct. 1105 117 L.Ed.2d 328 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners,v.Evert ROMEIN al. No. 90-1390. Argued Dec. 10, 1991. Decided March 9, 1992. Syllabus In 1980, the Michigan Legislature raised maximum weekly workers' compensation benefits and provided an annual supplemental adjustment to workers injured before 1980. The following year it enacted a statute allowing employers decrease those disabled employees eligible receive wage-loss from other employer-funded sources. Some employers, including petitioners, General Motors Corporation Ford Motor Company, took position that 1981 law's "benefit coordination" provision allowed them reduce statute's effective date, who were receiving State Supreme Court ultimately accepted this interpretation. Chambers v. Corp., 422 Mich. 636, 375 N.W.2d 715. 1987, legislature repudiated required had coordinated for previously under law refund withheld. upheld 1987 law, rejecting petitioners' arguments reimbursement was unfairly retroactive violated Contract Clause Due Process of Federal Constitution. Held: 1. did not substantially impair obligations contracts with their in violation Clause, because there no contractual agreement regarding specific terms allegedly at issue. entered into after collective bargaining between parties make express mention benefits. Nor implied contract term whereby promised pay amount by each payment period, obligation completed making payments any disability period. There occasion consider taking place date question whether unanticipated reduction could later be restored period" closed. Petitioners err arguing such is "incorporated" employment contracts, regardless parties' assent. does explicitly imply employer depend on closure past periods; right appear so central bargained-for exchange parties, or enforceability as whole, must deemed term. regulations are usually assent only when laws affect validity, construction, enforcement contracts. See United States Trust Co. New York Jersey, 431 1, 19, n. 17, 97 1505, 1516, 52 92. While changes legally enforceable may trigger scrutiny if they pre-existing even do alter contracts' terms, change legal here. still have same ability enforce enactment. Petitioners' suggestion every workplace regulation should read private would expand definition far lose its purpose enabling individuals order personal business affairs according particular needs interests; cause protect against all legislation, changes' effect agreements; severely limit state legislatures amend regulatory legislation; render entirely dependent law. Pp. 186-191. 2. violate Clause. Its rational means furthering legitimate legislative correcting results opinion. Cf. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 717, 730, 104 2709, 2718, 81 601. It preserved compromise been struck 1980-1981 laws—giving 1982 full without coordination, but greater increases made subsequently workers—and equalized relied not, cf. Sperry 493 52, 64-65, 110 387, 396-397, 107 290. 191-192. 436 515, 462 555, (1990), affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Theodore Sachs, Detroit, Mich., respondents. Justice O'CONNOR 1 requiring petitioners (GM) Company (Ford) repay GM withheld reliance statute. challenge mandating these ground violates 2 * Since least 1974, has subject study bitter debate. VanderLaan Studley, Workers' Compensation Reform: A Case Study Legislative Michigan, 14 U.Mich.J.L.Ref. 451, 452-454 (1981). "Literally dozens conflicting proposals" offered year, fought standstill competing interest groups. Id., 453. logjam finally broken Governor four leaders began series negotiations leading reforms. "Neither side able obtain everything wanted—possibly good indication degree balance represents." 458. 3 Among things, 1980 legislation 90% average wage, up five percent. Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. §§ 418.355(2), 418.352(1) (1982). 1981, § 418.354 This provision, what called coordination," heart controversy case. 4 benefit coordination specify applied 31, 1982. 1982, For example, cut respondent Romein's $132.00 per week, Gonzalez's $176.00 week. lower courts disagreed interpretation, holding See, e.g., Franks White Pine Copper Div., Range 122 Mich.App. 177, 185, 332 447, 449 Both Houses passed concurrent resolution declaring provisions "not designed disrupt which already being received employee prior act resulting injuries incurred act's date." Senate Concurrent Res. 575, adopted April House May 18, J. 626, 706-707; 1262. bill introduced respect, passed. Bill 834, 26, 5 Meanwhile, continued attempt persuade date. 1985, interpretation decided together court held periods injured. also application 6 After decision Chambers, demand employees. Jones, Firms Cut Checks Disabled Workers, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 29, p. 3A. responded almost immediately introducing overturn court's decision. On October 16, ruled motion rehearing 5084 introduced. As amended January 1986, decision, declared seek affected employees, reimburse own version bill, 67, disapproving providing require Conference Committee provide result putting not. Analysis (May 7, 1987). 14, 1987. Mich.Pub.Acts 28. 7 statute, ordered nearly $25 million They protested challenges, vested rights purposes, furthered purpose. 555 (1990). We granted certiorari, 500 ----, 111 2008, 114 (1991), now affirm. II 8 Article I, 10 Constitution provides: "No shall . pass Law impairing Obligation Contracts." claim impaired 9 Generally, we first ask "operated substantial impairment relationship." Allied Structural Steel Spannaus, 438 234, 244, 98 2716, 2722, 57 727 (1978); Energy Reserves Group, Inc., Kansas Power Light 459 400, 411, 103 697, 704, 74 569 (1983). inquiry three components: relationship, impairs substantial. Normally, two unproblematic, need address third. case, however, reach questions impairment, hold undisputed themselves formed coordination. argue bargained mind. defined as: promise Once performance settled expectation cannot undone legislation. Because "reopens" closed transactions, contend 11 suggested "accord respectful consideration great weight views State's highest court," though "bound decide ourselves made." Indiana ex rel. Anderson Brand, 303 95, 100, 58 443, 446, 82 L.Ed. 685 (1938). federal purposes analysis, see Irving Day, 314 556, 561, 62 398, 401, 86 452 (1942), "whether turns issues general purely local can surrender duty exercise our judgment." Appleby City York, 271 364, 380, 46 569, 573, 70 992 (1926). reason disagree Court's conclusion. 12 true contracting give dealings, Garrison 21 Wall. 196, 203, 22 612 (1875), here way manifested limiting accordance issue came effect. Thus, here: 13 rely "closed" assent, implied, parties. cite passages decisions " 'the subsist time enter form part it,' Home Building Loan Ass'n Blaisdell, 290 429-430, 54 231, 236-237, 78 413 (1934) (quoting Von Hoffman Quincy, 535, 550, 18 403 (1867)), principle here, since shown alleged original contract. Though courts, awarding unpaid awards, awards more analogous damages than tort damages, see, Wilson Doehler-Jarvis Division National Lead 358 510, 517-519, 100 226, 229-230 (1960); Brown Eller Outdoor Advertising 139 360 322, 326 (1984), periods. Moreover, Contrary suggestion, while effective, especially fairly interpreted incorporation. most part, 92 (1977). 15 somewhat misleading characterize affecting "incorporated terms" contract, A. Corbin, Corbin Contracts 551, pp. 199-200 (1960), analysis them, reduced simple, unenforceable promises. "The consists binding force party makes it. depends existence made; necessarily referred forming measure perform one party, acquired other. If subsequent diminish duty, right, bears contract." McCracken Hayward, How. 608, 612, 397 (1844). also, supra. remedies available convert mere promise, thereby contract's obligatory force. Sturges Crowninshield, Wheat. 122, 197-198, 529 (1819); Edwards Kearzey, 96 595, 601, 24 793 (1878). reason, terms. supra (repeal tax bond issue); Bronson Kinzie, 311, 316, 143 (1843) (law foreclosure rights); McCracken, supra, 611-614 (same). 16 enacted. arrangements constitutional anchoring purpose, i.e., "enabl[ing] interests." Steel, U.S., 245, 2723. Instead, agreements. view, incorporate safety regulations, obligations, prohibiting discrimination, intended construction Amendments take until existing expired, evade entering long-term ultimate irony proposed that, taken extreme, itself Story pointed out: 17 "It contended, some learned minds, municipal where forms it, travels wherever found. admitted true, consequence be, State, incorporated constitute stipulations. If, therefore, provide, thereafter entire control legislature, obligation, execution, whatever might completely within power, extinguished future laws; thus having complete post facto operation." Story, Commentaries States, 1383, 252-253 (5th ed. 1891). III unreasonably interfered transactions. Retroactive presents problems unfairness serious posed prospective deprive citizens expectations upset "[t]he aspects [economic] well aspects, meet test due process": means. 601 (1984). 19 case meets standard. correct unexpected repayment meeting objective: delicate giving given workers. Also, gambled (1989) (legitimate legislate retrospectively ensure similarly situated persons bear similar financial burdens program). 20 sum, knew risk reducing workers, chances Having lost battle Legislature, wished continue war court. Losing political skirmish, creates relief. Affirmed.

Category: 7