The U.S. Supreme Court case Alessi et al. v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., et al., 1980 revolved around the issue of whether private pension plans could coordinate their benefits with workers' compensation awards under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The plaintiffs were retired employees who had been exposed to asbestos and received disability payments from both their employer's pension plan and state workers' compensation programs. Their employer reduced their pension benefits by the amount they received in workers' compensation, a practice known as "offsetting." The retirees argued that this violated ERISA's non-forfeitability provision which protects employee rights to vested benefits. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Raybestos-Manhattan Inc., stating that ERISA did not prohibit such offsets because it only protected 'nonforfeitable' or vested rights - those guaranteed unconditionally to an employee upon meeting certain requirements like length of service - but did not guarantee any particular calculation method for determining benefit levels. Therefore, employers could reduce pension payouts based on other sources of income without violating federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Alessi et al. v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). He argued that ERISA was designed to protect employees' pension benefits and should not be used as a tool by employers to reduce those benefits. The majority held that New Jersey’s law, which prohibited companies from reducing an employee's pension benefits due to workers’ compensation awards, was preempted by ERISA. However, Justice Brennan contended this interpretation contradicted Congress’s intent in passing ERISA - ensuring financial security for retirees rather than enabling employers to offset their liabilities using workers' pensions. Furthermore, he believed it violated principles of federalism because states have traditionally had authority over worker compensation laws while federal government has jurisdiction over retirement income policy.