Skip to main content

McCoy v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LABORERS'INTERN.

D.N.J.February 26, 2002No. Civil Action No. 00-1481
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of ContractFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ordering the pension plan trustees to pay disability retirement benefits retroactive to July 1995 (rather than January 1999) and to provide updated Summary Plan Description disclosures to beneficiaries.

What This Ruling Means

**McCoy v. Board of Trustees of Laborers' International Union Pension Plan** This case involved a worker named McCoy who applied for disability retirement benefits from his union pension plan. McCoy claimed he became disabled in July 1995, but the pension plan trustees didn't start paying his benefits until January 1999 – nearly four years later. McCoy argued that the plan violated their contract by delaying his benefits and failed to properly accommodate his disability. He also complained that the pension plan didn't provide workers with updated information about their benefits. The court sided with McCoy on key issues. The judge ordered the pension plan trustees to pay McCoy's disability retirement benefits going back to July 1995, when he first became disabled, rather than starting from January 1999. The court also required the pension plan to give all beneficiaries updated Summary Plan Description documents that clearly explain their benefits. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that pension plans must honor their promises and pay benefits when workers become eligible, not when it's convenient for the plan. It also reinforces that workers have the right to receive clear, up-to-date information about their pension benefits so they can make informed decisions about their retirement planning.

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

Similar Rulings

McCoy
3rd CircuitMar 2003
Mixed Result
McCoy
D.N.J.Feb 2002
Plaintiff Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

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.