Subject practice path

Pension and Employee Benefits Law Practice Tests

Practice Pension and Employee Benefits Law exam questions covering core doctrines, issue spotting, applied analysis, and exam-ready explanations.

How To Study This Subject

Learn the rule

Read the outline and identify the elements, exceptions, and policy tensions.

Test recall

Use the 20 free questions first, then move into timed premium sets.

Apply cases

Connect leading authorities to problem-question facts and ratio-based reasoning.

Write under time

Turn missed topics into IRAC plans and short timed answers.

Related Case Briefs

Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

451 U.S. 504

ERISA does not prohibit pension plans from offsetting benefits by the amount of workers' compensation awards, and such offsets are not preempted state laws unless they conflict with ERISA's goals.

Butler v. Kellogg Co.

917 F.3d 601

Retiree health benefits under an ERISA welfare plan do not vest unless the plan document contains clear, explicit language that the benefits are permanent and not subject to amendment.

Eddy v. Colonial Life Insurance Co.

919 F.3d 114

A conflict of interest does not alter the standard of review, but it is one factor considered in the abuse of discretion analysis; the court may weigh the conflict more heavily if there is evidence of procedural unreasonableness.

DiGiacomo v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

591 F. App'x 52

Under ERISA, a plan administrator must engage in a reasonable dialogue; failure to credit competent medical evidence without reasoned explanation is arbitrary and capricious.

Barker v. American Mobil Power Corp.

64 Va. Cir. 148

Welfare benefits are not vested under ERISA unless the plan documents unambiguously provide for vested lifetime benefits; employers can generally amend or terminate welfare plans at will.

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz

541 U.S. 739

A plan amendment that imposes new conditions on the receipt of already-accrued benefits (such as expanding suspension-of-benefit rules) violates the anti-cutback rule.

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink

517 U.S. 882

Employers are not fiduciaries when they amend their plans; amendments that provide new benefits conditioned on waivers of existing rights are permissible as long as they do not reduce accrued benefits.

Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon

498 U.S. 133

State law claims alleging that an employer terminated an employee to avoid pension vesting are preempted by ERISA, as they 'relate to' the plan and are within ERISA's scope.