In the Lockheed Corporation, et al. v. Paul L. Spink case of 1995, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an employer's amendment to a pension plan does not violate Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) if it requires employees to release claims against the company in order to receive early retirement benefits. The court held that ERISA did not limit an employer’s ability to amend its pension plan for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law and thus Lockheed was within its rights when it required employees who wished to take advantage of new early retirement benefits under their amended plan, which included additional years of service credit towards their pensions, had also agree not sue over past employment practices as part of this agreement.

In the dissenting opinion for Lockheed Corporation, et al. v. Paul L. Spink (1995), Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of ERISA was too narrow and failed to protect employees' rights adequately. She contended that Lockheed's amendment of its pension plan - which allowed it to use surplus assets to fund non-pension benefits - violated ERISA’s fiduciary duty provisions because it benefited the company at the expense of employees’ retirement security. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that an employee must be a participant in a plan at the time of legal action in order to have standing under ERISA; instead, she believed former participants should also have this right if they could demonstrate harm or risk from alleged violations.