The U.S. Supreme Court case M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett dealt with the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements regarding retiree healthcare benefits. The plaintiffs were retired employees who argued that their employer, M&G Polymers, had agreed to provide them with lifetime health care benefits in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). When the company later required retirees to contribute towards these costs, they sued for breach of contract. Lower courts sided with the retirees based on an inference known as the "Yard-Man inference," which assumes that parties intend for such benefits to vest for life unless there is specific language indicating otherwise in their CBA. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court in 2014, this ruling was reversed by a unanimous decision led by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court held that ordinary principles of contract law should be used when interpreting CBAs and rejected Yard-Man's pro-vesting presumption as inconsistent with general contract principles and traditional labor law rules.

In the dissenting opinion for M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision did not properly consider the context of collective bargaining agreements and industry-specific customs or practices. She contended that such contracts should be interpreted to favor lifetime benefits unless there is explicit language stating otherwise. The justice believed that silence on duration in a contract does not necessarily imply an intent for limited-term coverage but could reflect an understanding based on industry practice of perpetual benefits. Furthermore, she criticized the majority’s reliance on ordinary contract principles without considering federal labor policies which encourage senior employees to retire with assurance of health care throughout retirement.