Windstream Corporation,., et al. v. Lee, et al., No. 13-1723 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseWindstream filed suit against defendant and other retirees who challenged company authority to modify retiree benefits unilaterally. The court concluded that there was no evidence indicating that Windstream was required to obtain retiree consent. The court also concluded that the benefits were not permanently vested. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of Windstream.
Court Description: Civil case - ERISA. The relevant documents did not establish that Windstream needed Lee's consent to modify his retiree health benefits, and the benefits were not permanently vested. Judge Loken, with whom Judge Limbaugh joins, concurring
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.