Pacheco v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 18-1006 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Former employees of Honeywell, who retired before age 65 during the terms of Honeywell's 2007 and 2010 collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), filed a class action alleging that Honeywell's announced plan to terminate early retiree healthcare benefits at the end of 2017 breached the CBAs and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), because those healthcare benefits vested when each class member retired.
The Eighth Circuit agreed with the Sixth Circuit and held that the Supreme Court's decision in CNH Indus. N.V. v. Reese, 138 S. Ct. 761 (2018), was controlling in this case. Under Reese, the court held that plaintiffs' retiree healthcare benefits were not vested as a matter of law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Melloy and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - ERISA. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling in CNH Indus. N.V. v. Reese, 138 S. Ct. 761 (2018), plaintiffs' retiree healthcare benefits are not vested as a matter of law, and the district court's preliminary injunction based on plaintiffs' fair chance of prevailing on their claim of vested healthcare benefits is reversed.
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.