Batton i v. IBEW Local Union 102 Employee Pension Plan, 594 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2010)

What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?

Which two things must be shown by plaintiffs to prove that there has been a violation of ERISA's anti-cutback rule?

As the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA apply only to pensions and not to welfare plans, why did changing conditions under which retiree health-care benefits were available run afoul of the anti-cutback rule?

In what sense were the accrued pension benefits of these employees reduced?

What should the benefit plan have done instead?

Chapter 14-City of Brighton v. Rodriguez

What is the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?

What is the distinction between "employment," "personal," and "neutral" risks? Why does the court say that this case involves the latter category?

What is the "but-for" or "positional risk" test? How does the court apply it to the facts of this case? Would the outcome have been the same if the court had used a "peculiar risk" test? An "increased risk" test? An "actual risk" test? (See the text for explanations of these terms.) why?

Evaluate the judge's argument in the dissenting opinion. Is it persuasive? Why or why not?

In your view, should employees be eligible for workers' compensation in cases of "idiopathic" or unexplained falls? Why or why not?