Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Swaida v. IBM Retirement Plan

728 F.2d 159

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1984-02-22
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Weinfeld, J., Swaida v. IBM Retirement Plan, 570 F.Supp. 482 (S.D.N.Y.1983), granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the elapsed time regulations promulgated by the Department of the Treasury were within its competence and in the exercise of delegated authority and that IBM, having structured its pension plan in conformity therewith, acted justifiably when it denied plaintiff’s claim to a vested pension. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons spelled out by Judge Weinfeld in his opinion below, Swaida v. IBM Retirement Plan, 570 F.Supp. 482 (S.D.N.Y.1983).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Swaida v. IBM Retirement Plan. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
3 opinions
SWAIDA v. IBM RETIREMENT PLAN,728 F.2d 159(2nd Cir. 1984)
PAUL P. SWAIDA, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. IBM RETIREMENT PLAN, RETIREMENT PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE IBM RETIREMENT PLAN, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE IBM
RETIREMENT PLAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES (IBM)
CORPORATION, IBM VICE-PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCE, AND IBM
VICE-PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE FOR PERSONNEL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 568, Docket 83-7792.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued January 23, 1984.
Decided February 22, 1984.
David S. Preminger, Braverman Rosen, New York City, Karen W. Ferguson, Pension Rights Center, Stephen R. Bruce, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.

John M. Vine, Joanne B. Grossman, Covington Burling, Washington, D.C., Richard J. Sweetnam, IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., for defendants-appellees.

Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, William S. Estabrook, Michael J. Roach, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City, for amicus curiae U.S.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before MESKILL, KEARSE and PRATT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Weinfeld, J.,Swaida v. IBM Retirement Plan,570 F.Supp. 482 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the elapsed time regulations promulgated by the Department of the Treasury were within its competence and in the exercise of delegated authority and that IBM, having structured its pension plan in conformity therewith, acted justifiably when it denied plaintiff's claim to a vested pension.

[2] We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons spelled out by Judge Weinfeld in his opinion below,Swaida v.IBM Retirement Plan,570 F.Supp. 482 (S.D. N.Y. 1983).Page 160