United States Ninth Circuit

In a suit against defendant-company and its pension plan alleging that company's amendment of the plan violated both ERISA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), dismissal of the lawsuit is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) pension plans utilizing a so-called cash balance formula (cash balance plans) do not violate an anti-age discrimination provision of ERISA; 2) cash balance plans do not violate one of ERISA's "anti-backloading" provisions; 3) ERISA preempts plaintiffs' state law FEHA claim; but 4) plaintiffs' complaint adequately alleged that defendants violated ERISA's notice requirement.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/15/2008
• Decided 08/20/2008
• Published 08/20/2008

Judges

• N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judge:, Before:  B. FLETCHER, DANIEL M. FRIEDMAN, and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Jeffrey Lewis, Vincent Cheng, Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Oakland, CA;  James M. Finberg, Steven M. Tindall, Leiff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Jeffrey R. Tone, Anne E. Rea, Chris K. Meyer, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL;  Mark E. Haddad, Michael C. Kelley, Robert M. Stone, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendants-appellees.