Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

493 U.S. 365 (1990)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 365 (1990)

Facts

Curtis Guidry (plaintiff) served as the chief executive of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 9 (union) (defendant). Guidry also served as a trustee of the union’s pension fund (fund). Due to his various positions, Guidry was eligible to receive benefits from three different pension funds. An audit of the union’s accounting, however, revealed that Guidry had embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eventually, prosecutors charged Guidry with embezzlement; he pleaded guilty and began serving a jail sentence. While in prison, Guidry sued two of the pension plans for which he was eligible, claiming that they had wrongfully refused to pay him benefits. The union then intervened in the action. The funds claimed that Guidry’s criminal actions had forfeited his benefits rights or, alternatively, that if Guidry still had a right to the benefits, they should be given via a constructive trust to the union from which he had embezzled funds. Applying § 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which provided that retirement benefits under a pension plan were nonforfeitable, the district court concluded that Guidry had not forfeited his right to receive benefits. Although ERISA also contained a prohibition on assignment or other alienation of pension benefits, the court then concluded that a constructive trust would be appropriate to allow the union to recover the funds. The court noted that ERISA had to be read consistently with other federal labor laws that sought to combat union corruption. It would make little sense, the district court held, to allow Guidry to collect his benefits from the fund that was supported by the union from which he stole money. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership