Anderson v. Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois Pension Fund Board of Trustees

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plan maintained under the Taft-Hartley Act did not have a conflict of interest because the plan did not meet the standard laid out in Glenn
• noting that “ERISA permits employers to cut” benefits available under an employee welfare benefit plan
• “A plan administrator abuses its discretion if it renders a decision without any explanation . . .” (emphasis added)
• “A plan administrator abuses its discretion if it . . . . construes provisions of the plan in a way that conflicts with the plain language of the plan[.]”
• unvested welfare benefits not protected by anti-cutback rules

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).