| Litigants: | Mead Corp. v. Tilley |
| Arguedate: | February 22 |
| Argueyear: | 1989 |
| Decidedate: | June 5 |
| Decideyear: | 1989 |
| Fullname: | Mead Corp. v. Tilley |
| Usvol: | 490 |
| Uspage: | 714 |
| Parallelcitations: | 109 S. Ct. 2156; 104 L. Ed. 2d 796; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2709 |
| Docket: | 87-1868 |
| Prior: | Tilley v. Mead Corp., 815 F.2d 989 (4th Cir. 1987); cert. granted, . |
| Subsequent: | Tilley v. Mead Corp., 927 F.2d 756 (4th Cir. 1991); cert. denied, . |
| Majority: | Marshall |
| Joinmajority: | Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Dissent: | Stevens |
| Lawsapplied: | Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, et seq. |
Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U.S. 714 (1989), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.[1]
Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the Court, held that only after an employer has met PBGC conditions to fund plans can it recoup ‘excess’ funds that would not need to cover promised benefits.
Justice John P. Stevens dissented.