Lockheed Corp. v. Spink

1996 United States Supreme Court case

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 22, 1996 Decided June 10, 1996
Full case name	Lockheed Corp., et al. v. Spink
Docket no.	95-809
Citations	517 U.S. 882 (more) 116 S. Ct. 1783; 135 L. Ed. 2d 153; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3717
Case history
Prior	Spink v. Lockheed Corp., 60 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1995); cert. granted, 516 U.S. 1087 (1996).
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg; Souter and Breyer (all but Part III-B)
Concur/dissent	Breyer, joined by Souter
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(D)

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.^[1]

Facts

Mr Spink was denied full benefits from Lockheed Corporation after being rehired in 1988. He claimed that an amendment of the plan, to exclude people over 61, violated § 406(a)(1)(D) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),^[2] which prohibits a fiduciary from causing a plan to engage in a transaction that transfers plan assets to, or involves the use of plan assets for the benefit of, a party in interest.

Judgment

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that employers could amend plans. They were not bound by fiduciary duties while acting as sponsors.

Justices Breyer and Souter dissented in part, preferring to withhold expression of any view on the proposition that "the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction."