Rombach v. Nestle USA, Inc., 211 F.3d 190 (2^nd Cir. 2000)-Rombach argued that Nestle USA, Inc. violated 29 U.S.C. §1054(g) by negotiating a significant reduction in disability benefits without following the procedures of ERISA § 1082(c)(8).  This court found that §1054(g) applies only to "pension plans," not "welfare plans."  The fact that the plan titled the relevant benefits "pension benefits" was of no consequence, since under ERISA §  1002(1) "'to the extent' that a plan provides 'benefits in the event of ... disability,' [rather than benefits upon retirement] it is a welfare plan."

            Rombach had disputed the amount of the disability retirement pension benefits granted by Nestle Foods after she suffered a back injury in 1993.  At issue were modifications made to the plan in 1990 pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement which changed the manner in which the plan calculated disability retirement pensions.  Under the old provisions, the plan calculated disability benefits by giving an employee credit not only for actual service but also for the years that a disabled employee would have worked until normal retirement age.  If the plan had used this formula, the plan would have paid Rombach $1,100 per month.  But, under the new provisions, Nestle offered to pay only $ 276.00 per month.  Rombach thus sued on the basis that Nestle had illegally made a significant reduction in disability benefits.

This court affirmed the district court's finding that Nestle did not violate 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g).  The opinion did not address whether Rombach could have maintained an action under another theory.