In a dispute involving pension benefits brought under ERISA, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that the defendant wrongfully suspended plaintiff’s monthly pension benefits, as his new employment used different skills and was not in the same trade or craft as the position from which he had retired. The court erred in awarding plaintiff attorneys’ fees under ERISA as the Plan’s position was not untenable, indefensible, overbroad or unwarranted.
Read Eisenrich v. Minneapolis Retail Meat Cutters and Food Handlers Pension Plan, No. 08-2230
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.Submitted: December 13, 2008Filed: July 31, 2009
JudgesBefore COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.Opinion by COLLOTON, circuit Judge.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
