Albert L. Meredith v. Navistar International Transportation Corporation, and Its Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that appellant did not pursue his appeal in bad faith: “True, [he] should have known that his chances of achieving a reversal ... were slim. Slim, but not utterly hopeless.”
• noting that the Seventh Circuit has, in some cases, applied a different test when an ERISA defendant was seeking fees
• award of attorneys’ fees under Fed. R. App. P. 38 unjustified where brief is not “entirely groundless” and does not contain “blatant misrep- resentations”
• “The primary focus of § 510 is to prevent unscrupulous employers from discharging or harassing their employees in order to keep them from obtaining vested pension rights.”
• “If Meredith had made a prima facie ease showing that Navistar discharged or harassed him and that the desire to reduce his pension benefits was a ‘determinative factor’ in that action, the burden would have shifted to Navistar to articulate a permissible reason for its action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).