Skip to main content

McCoy v. Board of Trustees of the Laborers' International Union, Local No. 222 Pension Plan

D.N.J.February 26, 2002No. Civil Action No. 00-1481Cited 4 times
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

Plaintiff McCoy prevailed on his claims that the pension plan improperly calculated his disability retirement benefits and failed to apply a superseded plan provision. The court ordered the plan to pay the withheld benefits retroactive to July 1995 and to comply with statutory disclosure requirements.

What This Ruling Means

**McCoy v. Board of Trustees of the Laborers' International Union Pension Plan** This case involved a union member who believed his pension plan trustees incorrectly calculated his disability retirement benefits. McCoy claimed the pension plan used an outdated formula to determine his payments and failed to properly accommodate his disability-related needs. He also argued that the plan didn't provide him with required information about his benefits. The court ruled in McCoy's favor on both issues. The judge found that the pension plan had indeed used the wrong calculation method for his disability benefits and had applied an old plan provision that should no longer have been in effect. The court ordered the pension plan to pay McCoy the benefits he should have received dating back to July 1995 and required the plan to follow proper disclosure rules going forward. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that pension plan trustees must follow current plan rules and calculate benefits correctly. Workers have the right to challenge pension decisions in court if they believe their benefits were wrongly calculated. The case also reinforces that pension plans must provide workers with proper information about their benefits and follow legal disclosure requirements.

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.