In the 1994 case Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company and Stroh Brewery Company, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a company that withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan is liable for surcharges imposed by the plan after withdrawal but before final calculation of withdrawal liability. The court ruled in favor of Schlitz Brewing Company and Stroh Brewery Company, stating that they were not responsible for these charges as their obligation ended upon their exit from the pension plan. This decision clarified how obligations are calculated when companies leave multiemployer plans, providing important guidance for businesses considering such moves.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company and Stroh Brewery Company argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) regulations, which are designed to protect employees' pension benefits. The dissent believed that the majority had wrongly allowed Schlitz and Stroh breweries to avoid their obligations under these laws by selling assets before a merger, thereby avoiding liability for withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan. They contended this interpretation could potentially allow other companies to similarly evade their responsibilities towards employee pensions through strategic timing of asset sales prior to mergers or acquisitions, undermining ERISA’s purpose of ensuring financial security for retirees.