Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz

|ArgueDate=April 19

|ArgueYear=2004

|DecideDate=June 7

|DecideYear=2004

|FullName=Central Laborers' Pension Fund, Petitioner v. Thomas E. Heinz, et al.

|USVol=541

|USPage=739

|ParallelCitations=124 S. Ct. 2230; 159 L. Ed. 2d 46

|Prior=

|Subsequent=

|Holding=ERISA §204(g) prohibits a plan amendment expanding the categories of postretirement employment that triggers suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits already accrued.

|Majority=Souter

|JoinMajority=unanimous court

|Concurrence=Breyer

|JoinConcurrence=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Ginsburg

|LawsApplied=

}}

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739 (2004), is a case that was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on 19 April 2004. The question it presented was whether Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act contradicts Section 203(a)(3)(B).