Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund
United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 365 (1990)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
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…
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.