| Litigants: | Lockheed Corp. v. Spink |
| Arguedate: | April 22 |
| Argueyear: | 1996 |
| Decidedate: | June 10 |
| Decideyear: | 1996 |
| Fullname: | Lockheed Corp., et al. v. Spink |
| Usvol: | 517 |
| Uspage: | 882 |
| Parallelcitations: | 116 S. Ct. 1783; 135 L. Ed. 2d 153; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3717 |
| Docket: | 95-809 |
| Prior: | Spink v. Lockheed Corp., 60 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1995); cert. granted, . |
| Majority: | Thomas |
| Joinmajority: | Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg; Souter and Breyer (all but Part III-B) |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | Breyer |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Souter |
| Lawsapplied: | Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, |
Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.[1]
Mr Spink was denied full benefits from Lockheed Corporation after being rehired in 1988. He claimed that an amendment of the plan, to exclude people over 61, violated ยง 406(a)(1)(D) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),[2] which prohibits a fiduciary from causing a plan to engage in a transaction that transfers plan assets to, or involves the use of plan assets for the benefit of, a party in interest.
Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that employers could amend plans. They were not bound by fiduciary duties while acting as sponsors.
Justices Breyer and Souter dissented in part, preferring to withhold expression of any view on the proposition that "the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction."