WPCR 2ABcR Z23|["m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<;o;rfolWSGrfffZAeAe8.888888888888f>fffff]````J>J>J>J>rffffrrrrxffoffxffofff]]]]o````ffffffrrJ>J>J>J>lox;x;x;x;x;rrrrffWWWoSoSoSoSxGxGxGrrrrrrxfoZoZoZox;rWoSxGxfxfofrNe.}S1SSS```==`9}}`9(PPS88SSrr(P9ee\\w.e77\\\wwweeeCe.wR)EreewwwwIeenR\\\wwwxio\eEfRfIfRxe|W87y\r\rxWlRx\\]\ceIfIs`Wx\rriIe77\``rigewiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee777777777777\\\\\\\````````````rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrxfx8xs8s\"X^FJa3SS}FSFFFFofSS}3o}SOJO}otaxSSSFSS*SSSSSSSSSSOo}}}}fOfOfOfO}}}}}}}oooo}}}}fOfOfOfOOOOOO}}ooottttaaaxxxOota}NF}JokkTKSS3aaAA}}3aSF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^HJS<aa}FSFFFF}oaa}<a]XX}kaaSFSS*SSSSSSSSSS]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]XXXXX}}}}kkkX}kNF}J}}}\\VV<xx}SS}}<xVF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS2)Dc&New Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook BoldTimes RomanTimes Roman BoldNew Century Schoolbook ItalicNew Century Schoolbook Bold Italic"X^?Sf}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}FFoSaSFSu}So}o}oS}}FF}F}}}}SaF}}}}ox2xS?SS*SSSSSSSSSS}FooooooooooSFSFSFSF}}}}}}}}}}o}}}}}}ooooooo}oooo}}}}}}}}SFSFSFSFa}FFFFF}}}}}}SSSaaaaFFF}}}}}}}ooo}F}SaF}}}}}NX?q}So}}}}}EN}K}K-oo}SS}}SoKF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^?S}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}SS}a}SFS}S}ooS}FSF}oaS}}}oc7cS?SS*SSSSSSSSSSF}}}}}oooooaFaFaFaF}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooo}}}}}}aFaFaFaF}FFFFF}}oooaaaaSSS}oooFoaS}}}NX?}S}}}}}}KS}K}KF}}}SS}}S}KF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^*,:SS}z22K[*2**SSSSSSSSSS**[[[Collluldu}=Sudzudul_dzljj\2[2[KSSCVK2Q\/,Y/\KVSCE:\QuQQH2[2[2*222222222222V/lSlSlSlSlSwlClKlKlKlK=/=/=/=/z\uKuKuKuKz\z\z\z\jQlSuVuKuKjQuKdVlSlSlSlClClClCuVlKlKlKlKuQuQuQuQuQuQ}\}\=/=/=/=/SuYd/d/d/d/d/z\z\z\z\uKuK}lClClC_E_E_E_Ed:d:d:z\z\z\z\z\z\ujQ\H\H\HuVd/z\lC_Ed:jQjQuVuKz\N[*[K,C@@SSS2-}}S2ooS}2::S''KK\\:2[[RRk*[11RRRkskk[ZZ<[){kJ%>gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR27c!* c- c0 cJ4"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^56=ii,GG\o3=33iiiiiiiiii33ooo\QwzzGoGo\,pwfziGp~DAzA~pzw_\N~pppbGoGo=3============pDpppppfiiiiQDQDQDQD~pppp~~~~ppzppppzpppffffziiiipppppp~~QDQDQDQDwzAAAAA~~~~pp___z\z\z\z\NNN~~~~~~pzbzbzbzA~_z\Nppzp~No3\6\\\iiiCCi?i?,XX\==\\~~,X?ooee3o<cD"m^)+9RRzx11IY)1))RRRRRRRRRR))YYYAljjjrjbrz>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQX P['CPdB:SHvX pTCd@'l80lX pTC?DS?3s\  PCP:DS??皝4  p(AC&Eu![2*d[ P['CPJu![2*P[e xzCXdH*w=50wX pTC&L)o=3PRoe xzC&X I-v=5n}vz  xC&&r!Y1)LY P['CP K)o=3no P['C&P &[G' ԦGG P['C^P"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@2QsGo IH|JLOpin InitInitial Opinion codesdpЊ #  ( (    П I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I A 1 a (1)(a) i) a)@@FTNFormats for each footnote,  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:*P& uB ԍ FTN    XgEpXFr  ddf < See Shahid v. Ford Motor Co., 76 F. 3d 1404, 1411 (CA6 1996) (holding that 510 draws no distinction between benefits that vest  uB& and those that do not); Heath v. Varity Corp., 71 F. 3d 256, 258  uB (CA7 1995) (same); Seaman v. Arvida Realty Sales, 985 F.2d 543, 546 (CA11) (same), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 (1993); see also"##  uB McGann v. H & H Music Co., 946 F.2d 401, 408 (CA5 1991)  uBG (implying the same), cert. denied sub nom. Greenburg v. H & H  uB Music Co., 506 U.S. 981 (1992); Andes v. Ford Motor Co., 70 F. 3d 1332, 1336 (CADC 1995) (implying the same).>Pl"   519 U.S. ___ (1996), and now vacate the decision below and remand.  9H1 d d7II؃  2  The Court of Appeals' holding that 510 bars interference only with vested rights is contradicted by the plain language of 510. As noted above, that section makes it unlawful to discharge ... a [plan] participant or beneficiary ... for the purpose of interfering with the  JV attainment of any right to which such participant may  J. become entitled under the plan. 29 U.S.C. 1140 (emphasis added). ERISA defines a plan to include both an employee welfare benefit plan [and] an employee pension benefit plan, 1002(3), and specifically exempts employee welfare benefit plan[s] from its stringent vesting requirements, see 1051(1). Because a plan includes an employee welfare benefit plan, and because welfare plans offer benefits that do not vest (at least insofar as ERISA is concerned), Congress' use of the word plan in 510 all but forecloses the argument that 510's interference clause applies only to vested rights. Had Congress intended to confine 510's protection to vested rights, it could have easily substituted the term pension plan, see 29 U.S.C. 1002(2), for plan, or the term nonforfeitable right, see 1002(19), for any right. But 510 draws no distinction between those rights that vest under ERISA and those that do not.  The right that an employer or plan sponsor may enjoy in some circumstances to unilaterally amend or eliminate its welfare benefit plan does not, as the Court of Appeals apparently thought, justify a departure froml"   510's plain language. It is true that ERISA itself does not regulate the substantive content of welfarebenefit  J plans. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 732 (1985). Thus, unless an employer  J` contractually cedes its freedom, see, e.g., Adcox v.  J8 Teledyne, Inc., 21 F. 3d 1381, 1389 (CA6), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994), it is generally free under ERISA, for any reason at any time, to adopt, modify, or termi J nate [its] welfare pla[n]. CurtissWright Corp. v.  J Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78 (1995).  The flexibility an employer enjoys to amend or eliminate its welfare plan is not an accident; Congress recognized that requir[ing] the vesting of these ancillary benefits would seriously complicate the administration and increase the cost of plans. S. Rep. No. 93!383, p.51 (1973). Giving employers this flexibility also encourages them to offer more generous benefits at the outset, since they are free to reduce benefits should economic conditions sour. If employers were locked into the plans they initially offered, they would err initially  J on the side of omission. Heath v. Variety Corp., 256, 71 F.3d 258 (CA 7, 1995). Section 510 counterbalances this flexibility by ensuring that employers do not  Jh  circumvent the provision of promised benefits. Inger J@ sollRand Co., 498 U.S., at 143 (citing S. Rep. No. 93!127, pp. 35!36 (1973); H.R. Rep. No. 93!533, p. 17 (1973)). In short, 510 helps to make promises credi J ble. Heath, supra, at 258. An employer may, of course, retain the unfettered right to alter its promises, but to do so it must follow the formal procedures set forth in the plan. See 29 U.S.C. 1102(b)(3) (requiring plan to  J(  provide a procedure for amending such plan); Schoone J jongen, supra, at 78 (observing that the cognizable claim [under ERISA] is that the company did not [amend its welfare benefit plan] in a permissible manner). Adherence to these formal procedures increases the likelihood that proposed plan amend`"  Ԯments, which are fairly serious events, are recognized as such and given the special consideration they deserve.  J Schoonejongen, supra, at 82. The formal amendment process would be undermined if 510 did not apply because employers could informally amend their plans one participant at a time. Thus, the power to amend or abolish a welfare benefit plan does not include the power to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against the plan's participants and beneficiaries for the purpose of interfering with [their] attainment of ... right[s] ... under the plan. To be sure, when an employer acts without this purpose, as could be the case when making fundamental business decisions, such actions are not barred by 510. But in the case where an employer acts with a purpose that triggers the protection of 510, any tension that might exist between an employer's power to amend the plan and a participant's rights under 510 is the product of a careful balance of competing interests, and is most surely not the type of absurd or glaringly unjust  J result, Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc. v. Director, Office of  J Workers' Compensation Programs, 519 U.S. ___, ___ (1997) (Slip op., at 12), that would warrant departure from the plain language of 510.  Respondents argue that the Court of Appeals' decision must nevertheless be affirmed because 510, when applied to benefits that do not vest, only protects an employee's right to cross the threshold of eligibility for welfare benefits. See Brief for Respondent Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. 18. In other words, argue respondents, an employee who is eligible to receive benefits under an ERISA welfare benefits plan has already attain[ed] her right[s] under the plan, so that any subsequent actions taken by an employer cannot, by definition, interfer[e] with the attainment of ... right[s] under the plan. According to respondents, petitioners were eligible to receive welfare benefits`"   under the SFTSTeamsters plan at the time they were discharged, so they cannot state a claim under 510. The Court of Appeals' approach precluded it from evaluating this argument, and others presented to us, and we see no reason not to allow it the first opportunity to consider these matters on remand.  We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.  J ` BIt is so ordered.ă