University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Spink v. Lockheed Corp. EE-CA-0315
Docket / Court CV-92-0800-SVW ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Case Summary
On February 5, 1992, an employee of Lockheed Corporation filed a lawsuit under ERISA and the ADEA against Lockheed Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central Division of California. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, had been employed at Lockheed Corporation from 19 ... read more >
On February 5, 1992, an employee of Lockheed Corporation filed a lawsuit under ERISA and the ADEA against Lockheed Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central Division of California. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, had been employed at Lockheed Corporation from 1939 until 1950, when he left to work for a competitor. When he was 61 years old, Plaintiff returned to Lockheed Corporation. At that time, Lockheed's Retirement Plan excluded from participation those employees who were over the age of 60 when hired. However, in 1986, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) was passed to prohibit employers from excluding employees from a pension plan on the basis of age.

Lockheed ceased its prior practice, and Plaintiff became a member of the Plan; however, Defendant did not credit Plaintiff for his years of service before he became a member of the Plan. Later, Defendant amended its Plan to create retirement programs; employees who participated in the program were required to release any employment-related claims they might have. Plaintiff declined to participate in a retirement program because he did not wish to waive any ERISA or ADEA claims.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged that, among other things: (1) Lockheed violated ERISA's duty of care by amending the Plan to create the retirement program; and, (2) OBRA required that Defendant count Plaintiff's pre-OBRA service years toward his accrued pension benefits. Plaintiff sought monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

On July 31, 1992, the Court (Judge Stephen V. Wilson) granted Defendant Lockheed Corporation's Motion to Dismiss. Spink v. Lockheed Corp., 1992 WL 437985 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 1992). Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiff was not entitled to participate in the plan retroactively or to accrue benefits retroactively. Further, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege a violation of fiduciary duty under ERISA.

On July 18, 1995, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Dorothy Wright Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt, and Melvin Brunetti) affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint. Spink v. Lockheed Corp., 60 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1995). Reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals concluded that Defendant's 1990 Plan amendments violated ERISA. Affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiff could not use issue preclusion to bar Defendant from contesting Plaintiff's fiduciary breach claim. Further, the Court held that Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees because Defendant's arguments regarding the validity of the Plan amendments were meritless.

The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari. Reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court on June 10, 1996. Spink v. Lockheed Corp., 517 U.S. 882 (1996). The Court applied a rule relating to amendment of welfare benefit plans announced in Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen; under this rule, when employers or other plan sponsors adopt, modify, or terminate pension plans, they do not act as fiduciaries. Further, the Court held that the relevant sections of OBRA did not apply retroactively to require Defendant to use pre-1988 service years in calculating Plaintiff's benefits.

On remand, on September 10, 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether Plaintiff could state a cause of action under ERISA §§ 403, 404, or 405, or under equitable estoppel principles, because the Supreme Court did not address these issues. Spink v. Lockheed Corp., 125 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court held that Defendant did not violate § 403 because "an employer has discretion to decide how to use an asset surplus attributable solely to employer contributions." Further, Defendant did not violate §§ 404 and 405 because the Supreme Court expressly held that Defendant was not acting as a fiduciary. Finally, the Court held that the District Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim because Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that he reasonably relied upon an interpretation of ambiguous Plan provisions.

No further information regarding this case is available.

Haley Waller - 10/29/2010


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Pay / Benefits
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) Lockheed Corporation
Plaintiff Description Employee of Lockheed Corporation
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought None on record
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party Unknown
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Unknown
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 1992
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:92-cv-00800-SVW (C.D. Cal.) 09/13/1996
EE-CA-0315-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LOCKHEED CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS 07/31/1992 (1992 WL 437985) (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0315-0008.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California 07/18/1995 (60 F.3d 616)
EE-CA-0315-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Public.Resource.Org
RESPONDENTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION 12/22/1995
EE-CA-0315-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS 02/29/1996
EE-CA-0315-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS 04/12/1996
EE-CA-0315-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Supreme Court Opinion 06/10/1996 (517 U.S. 882)
EE-CA-0315-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Public.Resource.Org
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court 01/29/1997 (105 F.3d 1320)
EE-CA-0315-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Public.Resource.Org
On remand from the United States Supreme Court 09/10/1997 (125 F.3d 1257)
EE-CA-0315-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Public.Resource.Org
Judges Brunetti, Melvin T. (Ninth Circuit)
EE-CA-0315-0001 | EE-CA-0315-0006 | EE-CA-0315-0007 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Nelson, Dorothy Wright (Ninth Circuit)
EE-CA-0315-0001 | EE-CA-0315-0006 | EE-CA-0315-0007 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (Ninth Circuit)
EE-CA-0315-0001 | EE-CA-0315-0006 | EE-CA-0315-0007 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Thomas, Clarence (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS)
EE-CA-0315-0002 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Wilson, Stephen Victor (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0315-0008 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Traber, Theresa M. (California)
EE-CA-0315-0004 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Voorhees, Bert (California)
EE-CA-0315-0004 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Geller, Kenneth S. (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0315-0003 | EE-CA-0315-0005 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Gordon, David E. (California)
EE-CA-0315-0003 | EE-CA-0315-0005 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Hurvitz, Ralph (Illinois)
EE-CA-0315-0003 | EE-CA-0315-0005 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Johnson, Kenneth E. (California)
EE-CA-0315-0003 | EE-CA-0315-0005 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Krischer, Gordon E (California)
EE-CA-0315-0003 | EE-CA-0315-0005 | EE-CA-0315-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -