Skip to main content

Ousley v. General Motors Retirement Program for Salaried Employees

S.D. OhioMarch 13, 2006No. 3:01cv309Cited 20 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Rice
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment
State
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed in his ERISA claim for pension benefits under the General Motors Salaried Employees Plan and was awarded attorney's fees and costs totaling $9,172.84 after the court found the defendant plan administrator acted in bad faith by delaying and contesting payment of benefits it knew were owed.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Wins Pension Fight Against General Motors** This case involved a dispute over pension benefits owed to a former General Motors salaried employee. The worker, Ousley, claimed that GM's retirement program was wrongfully withholding pension benefits that he had earned and was entitled to receive under the company's employee benefit plan. The court ruled in favor of the worker, finding that GM's plan administrator had acted in bad faith. The judge determined that the company knew the pension benefits were owed to Ousley but deliberately delayed and fought against paying them anyway. As a result, the court ordered GM to pay the worker $9,172.84, which covered his attorney's fees and court costs. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling demonstrates that employees can successfully challenge employers who wrongfully deny or delay pension benefits. When companies act in bad faith by withholding benefits they know are owed, courts will not only order payment of the benefits but may also require the employer to cover the worker's legal expenses. This helps level the playing field, as workers don't have to worry about being stuck with expensive legal bills when fighting legitimate benefit claims against large corporations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.