Deschamps v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. Salaried Employees Retirement Plan
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Sharp
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
- State
- Tennessee
- Circuit
- Sixth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Plaintiff Deschamps prevailed on his ERISA claims for equitable estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the anti-cutback provision. The court found that Bridgestone managers promised him pension credit for his pre-1993 service in Quebec, he reasonably relied on that promise (including turning down higher-paying job offers), and the plan documents were ambiguous enough to support equitable relief.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
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.