Assignment: Case Study Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz 541 U.S. 739 (2004) found in Employment Law for Business (9th ed.) on pages 894–895. You are to read this case in its entirety. You are then to answer the case questions found on pages 833. Your response should be in the form of a 3–5 page analysis of the case.
Assignment status: Solved by our Writing Team at CapitalEssayWriting.com
ORDER YOUR COPY AT CapitalEssayWriting.com
Case Study Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz 541 U.S. 739 (2004)
Name:
Grade Course:
Tutor’s Name:
Introduction
Thomas Heinz worked in a construction company for 20 years and attained the retirement age. Since he was eligible to receive pension, Heinz started receiving pension payment from the central laborers pension plan. Thomas Heinz decided to took another job as a supervisor in the construction sector(Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2016). Although the pension plan clearly outlines employees who would not work and at the same time receiving the pension, construction supervisors were excluded in the list. after two years of working, the Central Laborers’ Pension plan made the changes to the pension to include construction supervisors in the list of those who would not be eligible to receive pension payment while working. Following the changes, Thomas Heinz was discontinued from receiving pension payment.
The changes also affected Schmitt who was also a friend to Heinz and both of them decided to file a suit in the federal district court against the Central Laborers’ Pension Plan. They argued that the change on pension plan was made when why were already receiving the pension payment(Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz, 2004). As such, the Central laborers’ Pension Plan violated anti-cutback provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. According to ERISA, “amendment to any pension plan might not reduce the accrued benefit of the participants”. Since the changes made on the pension plan stopped Heinz and Schmitt from receiving pension payment, they alleged that it had reduced their accrued benefit. In response to the allegation, the Central Laborers’ Pension Plan stated that both Heinz and Schmitt were still eligible to receive the same pension payment they could not receive working as construction supervisors(Polzer & Butler, 1997). They further argued that only provision was changed and not the value of the pension plan itself, hence the change on…………………………………………………………………………………………………
ASSIGNMENT COMPLETED AT https://capitalessaywriting.com
MAKE YOUR ORDER AND GET THE COMPLETED ASSIGNMENT
