Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives.

Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney without cause.

Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch.

Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the company-funded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?