On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court decided CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, 574 U.S. ___ (2018), which raised, for the second time in three years, the question of how courts should interpret collective-bargaining agreements (“CBAs”). Reese involved a
The Supreme Court Says Goodbye to the Yard-Man Inference Again and Reaffirms Ordinary Principles of Contract Law Apply When Interpreting Collective Bargaining Agreements
By: Meg Troy and Ron Kramer
Seyfarth Synopsis: Disputes over lifetime retiree health benefits for union retirees may become a memory of the past. For the second time in three years, the Supreme Court confirms that collective bargaining agreements must
The Supreme Court Holds That Federal Courts Must Interpret Collective Bargaining Agreements in Accordance with “Ordinary Contract Principles;” Rejects So-Called “Yard-Man” Inferences
Resolving a split between circuits, this week the United States Supreme Court, in CNH Industrial v. Reese rejected what has come to be known as the Yard-Man standard, and reaffirmed that collective bargaining agreements must be interpreted according ordinary contract principles.
CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese (17-515)
After a four-week winter recess (you thought schoolchildren had it easy!), The Nine are back at work this week, and they handed down four opinions yesterday morning to prove they haven’t been hibernating all this time. In Digital Realty Trust
Tackett Redux: Ordinary Principles of Contract Interpretation Mean No Inference of Vesting
In an opinion released yesterday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) must be interpreted according to “ordinary principles of contract law.” CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, No. 17-515, 2018 WL 942419 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2018). In so