29 U.S.C. § 1141
Coercive interference
It shall be unlawful for any person through the use of fraud, force, violence, or threat of the use of force or violence, to restrain, coerce, intimidate, or attempt to restrain, coerce, or intimidate any participant or beneficiary for the purpose of interfering with or preventing the exercise of any right to which he is or may become entitled under the plan, this subchapter, section 1201 of this title, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act [29 U.S.C. 301 et seq.]. Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Teamsters Local Union No. 705 v. Burlington N. Santa Fe, LLC, 741 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2014).
Teamsters Local Union No. 705 v. Burlington N. Santa Fe, LLC, 741 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2014). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1141 (making it a crime to use fraud, force, threats, or violence to restrain, coerce, intimidate a participant or beneficiary of an employee benefits plan).”
Harold West, Trs. of the S. Labor Union Welfare Fund & Pension Fund v. James Butler, 621 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1980). “II The trustees have based their suit on sections 511 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1141 and § 1132(a)(3) respectively.”
Maxfield v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Health, Welfare & Pension Funds, 559 F. Supp. 158 (N.D. Ill. 1982). “The language of Count III, however, appears to track 29 U.S.C. § 1141 , a criminal provision, in which enforcement is the exclusive prerogative of the attorney general.”
George W. Bonin v. Am. Airlines, Inc. & the Am. Airlines, Inc. Pilot Ret. Plan, 621 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1980). “Section 511, 29 U.S.C. § 1141 , provides: It shall be unlawful for any person through the use of fraud, force, violence, or thre n of the use of force or violence, to restrain, coerce, intimidate, or attempt to restrain, coerce, or intimidate any participant or beneficiary for…”
Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 614 F. Supp. 694 (N.D. Ala. 1985). “§ 11U Proceeding directly in the face of all existing precedent as well as the plain language of the statute itself, plaintiffs next claim a right to recover under 29 U.S.C. § 1141 , which provides, inter alia: It shall be unlawful for any person through the use of fraud, force,…”
Becker v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 281 F.3d 372 (3rd Cir. 2002). “29 U.S.C. § 1141 ; West v. Butler, 621 F.”
Cobetto v. Wyeth Pharm., 619 F. Supp. 2d 142 (W.D. Pa. 2007). “In his complaint, Cobetto purports to rely on 29 U.S.C. § 1141 , which makes it "unlawful for any person through the use of fraud, force, violence, or threat of the use of force or violence, to restrain, coerce, intimidate, or attempt to restrain, coerce, or intimidate any…”
Lojek v. Thomas, 716 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1983). “29 U.S.C. § 1141 (1976). . Senator Javits also explained that § 510 would prevent an employer from arbitrarily discharging an employee whose pension rights are about to vest.”
Goins v. Teamsters Local 639—Employers Health & Pension Trust, 598 F. Supp. 1151 (D.D.C. 1984). “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. § 1141 lacks merit because this section of the statute is a criminal provision whose enforcement is the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General.”
Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir. 1986). “§ 1056 ); (6) the criminal fraud provision ( 29 U.S.C. § 1141 ); and (7) the disclosure provisions ( 29 U.”
Panter v. Am. Synthetic Rubber Corp., 686 F. Supp. 1210 (W.D. Ky. 1986). “Finally, the plaintiffs’ claim that ASRC attempted to: coerce and manipulate Plaintiffs and others who were subject to termination [on] 3/1/84 to sign away any claim to any legal action against Defendant Company and Defendant Union regarding loss of seniority rights, all of…”
Authier v. Ginsberg, 757 F.2d 796 (6th Cir. 1985). “Similarly, criminal sanctions are available for coercive interference with a beneficiary’s or participant’s rights, 29 U.S.C. § 1141 (1982); see West v. Butler, 621 F.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 1141(a) — 1 case
Admin Comm Wal-Mart v. Varco, Clara (7th Cir. 2003).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.