{ Banner Image } Print PDF
Subscribe to Publications



U.S. Supreme Court Rebukes Reliance on Yard-Man In Retiree Health Benefit Dispute

January 26, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on retiree-friendly inferences set forth in UAW v. Yard-Man are incompatible with ordinary principles of contract interpretation and should not be used when determining whether a collective bargaining agreement promises vested, unalterable lifetime retiree health insurance benefits.  

In M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett, a unanimous Court vacated and remanded a Sixth Circuit decision that the company was required to continue to pay the full cost of the retirees’ health benefits.  Although the dispute in Tackett will continue in the lower courts, the Supreme Court outlined several interpretive principles to guide contract interpretation: 

SchwartzThe Court acknowledged that parties can intend to create vested benefits and that an agreement may do so by containing explicit language.  The opinion did not, however, expressly require that a party seeking to establish that benefits vested rely on “clear and express” language.  Ultimately, the Court concluded that “when a contract is silent to the duration of retiree benefits, a court may not infer that the parties intended those benefits to vest for life.” 

What does this mean for employers who provide retiree health benefits?  The Supreme Court’s decision alters the playing field for employers located in Sixth Circuit states by removing an interpretive aid that for years made it difficult to defend a lawsuit challenging unilateral changes to union retiree insurance benefits.  The ruling does not, however, automatically validate employer unilateral action.  Instead, courts will need to interpret the relevant bargaining agreements and apply ordinary rules of contract interpretation to determine whether and to what extent retirees are entitled to health insurance.  Employers considering changes to union or non-union retiree insurance benefits should consult counsel.

Brian Schwartz

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.