Summary
explaining that the permanent Treasury regulations were preceded by temporary Department of Labor regulations, which were later withdrawn
Summary of this case from White v. Hilton Hotels Ret. PlanOpinion
No. 568, Docket 83-7792.
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.
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).