About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

33 Lab. & Emp. L. 1 (2004-2005)

handle is hein.journals/laboemplo33 and id is 1 raw text is: 'Dyr Aerican Bar Association Wa ay r ofERdSAcases n orea in which not all that Ifh hapeed9 on the Supremte Crt's1br and employment docket? Outgoing Section Secre- tary Stephen Befort, a law profes- sor at the University of Minnesota, posed this question to frame the annual lecture reviewing the High Court's year during the Section's Plenary Session at the ABA Annual Meeting August 9 in Atlanta. Befort noted that the seven labor and employment decisions issued by the Court was the sec- ond lowest number in the last 20 years. He also noted that three of the seven decisions were in Em- ployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) cases. Befort focused on two decisions that could have been major decisions had the Court decided differently. In General Dynamics Land Sys- ens v. Cline, the Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employ- ment Act (ADEA) does not prevent employers from implementing poli- cies that treat older workers more favorably than it does younger workers over 40, reversing a deci- sion of the Sixth Circuit. In Cline, a group of General Dynamics em- ployees challenged a collective bargaining agreement provision negotiated with the United Auto Workers that limited retiree health benefits to future retirees age 50 or older at the date of the agreement. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice David Souter stated that the leg- islative history of the ADEA evi- denced no intent to protect workers from discrimination that favored older workers. Notably, the Court declined to defer to the Equal Em- ployment Opportunity Commis- sion's interpretation of the ADEA as expressed in its regulation, stat- ing that the legislative history left no doubt. A dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the plain language of the statute prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, whether an indi- vidual is perceived as either too old or too young. Had the Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit, Cline would have been a blockbuster, Befort said, as it would have invalidated many early retirement programs that do not offer the same benefits to all work- ers over age 40. In Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, the Court held that state law claims challenging HMO medical coverage decisions were preempt- ed by ERISA and therefore remov- able to federal court. Two partici- pants in health insurance plans brought separate state court cases under a Texas statute, alleging that the HMOs failed to use ordinary care by, in one case, refusing to authorize payment for medica- tions prescribed for arthritis and, in the other, by refusing to authorize an extended hospital stay-recom- mended by the treating physician. The HMOs removed both cases to federal court, and the district court dismissed them when plain- tiffs declined to amend their com- plaints to assert claims under ERISA. The Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling that ERISA § 502(a) only pre- empts state causes of action when they precisely duplicate causes of continued on page 14 P.r.ofessor Befort Reviews Su 3reme Court's Labor and EmpWoyment Decisions

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most