A Seismic Shift? Before under vested benefits at the same level for the lifetime Reese, Yolton, “remain[ed] of the beneficiary.” Under vested benefits may be unilaterally reduced by an employer, Tackett, subject only to reasonableness requirement.” Before under even a 1% Reese, Loral, “our unilateral reduction in benefits be reconciled with our prior case law.” In the Tackett, “cannot court approved a unilateral 800% increase in a retiree’s annual out-of-pocket medical expenses as falling within the range of left to district court discretion. “reasonableness” This seismic shift in the concept of what vesting means is remarkable; more so given the fact that Judge Martin and Judge Cole were on the panels of both and and Judge Yolton Tackett Martin and Judge Keith were on the panels of both and After retirees Loral Tackett. Tackett, litigating in the Sixth Circuit may have legitimate concern about judicial predictability. and the Brackets Tackett Close review of may provide particular cause for concern. rejected the Tackett Tackett plaintiffs’ argument that the CBA promised specific benefit levels, but omitted operative CBA language. quoted the following language from the 2000 CBA: who retire Tackett “Employees on or after January 1, 1996...will receive a full Company contribution toward the cost of [health care] benefits....” The court inserted the bracketed term care” in place of the actual CBA “health language. The actual CBA language—including what was left out in the opinion—is Tackett (emphasis added): who retire on or after January 1, 1996...will receive a full “Employees Company contribution towards the cost of benefits The the described in this Exhibit B-1.” described in this Exhibit B-1” include the $4.00 drug co-pay, the $175 annual “benefits deductible, and the precise dollar amounts of the individual and family annual out-of-pocket maximums that were unilaterally increased by M&G.
A Seismic Shift? Before Reese, under Yolton, vested benefits “remain[ed] at the same level for the lifetime of the beneficiary.” Under Tackett, vested benefits may be unilaterally reduced by an employer, subject only to “our reasonableness requirement.” Before Reese, under Loral, even a 1% unilateral reduction in benefits “cannot be reconciled with our prior case law.” In Tackett, the court approved a unilateral 800% increase in a retiree’s annual out-of-pocket medical expenses as falling within the range of “reasonableness” left to district court discretion. This seismic shift in the concept of what vesting means is remarkable; more so given the fact that Judge Martin and Judge Cole were on the panels of both Yolton and Tackett and Judge Martin and Judge Keith were on the panels of both Loral and Tackett. After Tackett, retirees litigating in the Sixth Circuit may have legitimate concern about judicial predictability. Tackett and the Brackets Close review of Tackett may provide particular cause for concern. Tackett rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the CBA promised specific benefit levels, but omitted operative CBA language. Tackett quoted the following language from the 2000 CBA: “Employees who retire on or after January 1, 1996...will receive a full Company contribution toward the cost of [health care] benefits....” The court inserted the bracketed term “health care” in place of the actual CBA language. The actual CBA language—including what was left out in the Tackett opinion—is (emphasis added): “Employees who retire on or after January 1, 1996...will receive a full Company contribution towards the cost of the benefits described in this Exhibit B-1.” The “benefits described in this Exhibit B-1” include the $4.00 drug co-pay, the $175 annual deductible, and the precise dollar amounts of the individual and family annual out-of-pocket maximums that were unilaterally increased by M&G.
ISRAEL.docx