1. Notwithstanding the law as applied, do you believe an employer should be able to change the terms of pension plan qualifications once individuals have begun to avail themselves of the benefits? Can you think of any circumstances where you might be persuaded that the employer should be able to modify the plan in this regard?
2. The Court does not seem to be persuaded at all by the plan’s arguments, though the district court found in its favor. Are you persuaded by any of the plan’s arguments?

With few exceptions, the “anti-cutback” rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits any amendment of a pension plan that would reduce a participant’s “accrued benefit.” The question is whether the rule prohibits an amendment expanding the categories of postretirement employment that triggers suspension of payment of early retirement benefits already accrued. We hold such an amendment prohibited.