existing indemnity plan with the managed care plan. He wrote that the court not ignore “could the reality that there was something different about this case—something that implicated the distinct question of what means in this context.” He wrote that blinked reality to say ‘vesting’ “it that the benefits were forever unchangeable, given that the parties had allowed them to ‘vested’ change, even in some ways that did not favor prior retirees.” again referred to this Reese II particularized the practice under the 1998 CBA of altering healthcare “context,” “parties’ benefits” and the 1998 creation of the managed care plan. This led to the Reese I “context” conclusion, the majority explained, that although retiree healthcare benefits were vested, Reese II still could make changes to the healthcare plan covering eligible retirees.” “CNH ‘reasonable’ Is limited to its distinct and Or does signal a new era of Reese Reese “facts” “context”? contract jurisprudence, in which judges become chancellors-in-equity who CBAs based “reform” on social and economic policies? Because the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing en banc “evolving” of confusion about its meaning and scope will engender continuing litigation. Reese II, Employers that establishes a universal rule, permitting them to unilaterally Reese change vested healthcare as long as the changes are Since and after Reese I, Reese “reasonable.” however, without directly addressing the broader implications, if any, of the Sixth II, Reese, Circuit has reaffirmed traditional contract principles and that vested benefits are “unalterable.” If has broad implications--if is read to permit unilaterally-imposed employer Reese Reese reductions in promised retiree healthcare based on events—bad things will happen. “evolving” Retiree healthcare lawsuits will be never-ending battles waged by lawyers and, worse, by healthcare specialists, actuaries, demographers, labor economists, and financial “experts”: prognosticators. Each will vie to convince judges that his or her provides “expert” “expertise” the true measure of what healthcare retirees in the of any given year. This ought to get “reality”
existing indemnity plan with the managed care plan. He wrote that the court “could not ignore the reality that there was something different about this case—something that implicated the distinct question of what ‘vesting’ means in this context.” He wrote that “it blinked reality to say that the ‘vested’ benefits were forever unchangeable, given that the parties had allowed them to change, even in some ways that did not favor prior retirees.” Reese II again referred to this particularized “context,” the “parties’ practice under the 1998 CBA of altering healthcare benefits” and the 1998 creation of the managed care plan. This “context” led to the Reese I conclusion, the Reese II majority explained, that although retiree healthcare benefits were vested, still “CNH could make ‘reasonable’ changes to the healthcare plan covering eligible retirees.” Is Reese limited to its distinct “facts” and “context”? Or does Reese signal a new era of contract jurisprudence, in which judges become chancellors-in-equity who “reform” CBAs based on “evolving” social and economic policies? Because the Sixth Circuit denied en banc rehearing of Reese II, confusion about its meaning and scope will engender continuing litigation. Employers that Reese establishes a universal rule, permitting them to unilaterally change vested healthcare as long as the changes are “reasonable.” Since Reese I, and after Reese II, however, without directly addressing the broader implications, if any, of Reese, the Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed traditional contract principles and that vested benefits are “unalterable.” If Reese has broad implications--if Reese is read to permit unilaterally-imposed employer reductions in promised retiree healthcare based on “evolving” events—bad things will happen. Retiree healthcare lawsuits will be never-ending battles waged by lawyers and, worse, by “experts”: healthcare specialists, actuaries, demographers, labor economists, and financial prognosticators. Each “expert” will vie to convince judges that his or her “expertise” provides the true measure of what healthcare retirees ought to get in the “reality” of any given year. This
ISRAEL.docx