Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Employment — ERISA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 16, 2014//

Employment — ERISA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 16, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Employment — ERISA

Contracts under ERISA must be in writing to be enforceable.

“Pension and welfare funds are entitled to rely on the writings they receive. Central States Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck Service, Inc., 870 F.2d 1148 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc), analogizes them to holders in due course, not to simple third-party beneficiaries whose rights can be cut off at the contracting parties’ whim. Usually they are not privy to negotiations between unions and employers; they cannot tell when one or the other (or both) had mental reservations. Pension and welfare funds set both benefit levels and contribution rates based on actuarial calculations, and those calculations depend on the terms of the written agreements that control coverage and eligibility. That’s why funds can enforce the writings they receive. Gerber Truck Service held that a multi-employer pension fund can enforce a contract as written even though the union and the employer have a side agreement that certain parts of the contract will be ignored. See also, e.g., Central States Pension Fund v. Schilli Corp., 420 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2005); Central States Pension Fund v. Joe McClelland, Inc., 23 F.3d 136 (7th Cir. 1994). Whatever reservations Abramson had were not conveyed to the funds until August 2009, much too late.”

Reversed and Remanded.

13-3613 Russ v. South Water Market, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Guzmán, J., Easterbrook, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests