Skip to main content

Schane v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union Local No. 710 Pension Fund Pension Plan

7th CircuitJuly 23, 2014No. 13-3745Cited 20 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Posner, Flaum, Manion
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the pension plan trustees, holding their interpretation of the plan's retirement definition was not arbitrary or capricious. Schane's retirement date for benefit calculation purposes was August 2009 (when covered employment ceased), not December 2011, resulting in a $2,600 monthly benefit rather than the $2,900 he sought.

What This Ruling Means

**Schane v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union Local No. 710 Pension Fund** **What Happened:** Joseph Schane had a dispute with his union's pension fund regarding his pension benefits. While the specific details aren't provided in the excerpt, pension disputes typically involve disagreements over benefit calculations, eligibility requirements, or the amount of payments workers are entitled to receive in retirement. **What the Court Decided:** The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Schane's case in July 2014. This means the court threw out his lawsuit without ruling in his favor. The dismissal could have occurred for various reasons, such as the case being filed incorrectly, missing required deadlines, or failing to meet legal requirements to move forward. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights the challenges workers may face when disputing pension decisions. When pension cases get dismissed, it often means workers must ensure they follow proper procedures and deadlines when challenging benefit determinations. Workers dealing with pension issues should understand that union pension funds operate under specific rules, and legal challenges require careful attention to procedural requirements. Those with pension concerns should consider consulting with benefits specialists or attorneys who understand pension law to avoid similar dismissals.

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.