## Facts

- William Kennedy participated in DuPont’s ERISA-governed Savings and Investment Plan (SIP), which allowed him to designate, replace, or revoke beneficiaries only through procedures set by the plan administrator.
- In 1974, William executed a beneficiary designation naming his wife, Liv Kennedy, as sole beneficiary; he named no contingent beneficiary.
- William and Liv divorced in 1994; the divorce decree stated Liv was divested of any interest in William’s retirement and similar employment benefits.
- The decree was not a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the SIP, and no SIP QDRO was ever submitted.
- William died in 2001 without filing a new SIP beneficiary designation or otherwise removing Liv as beneficiary under the plan’s procedures.
- William’s daughter, Kari Kennedy, as executrix, requested payment to the Estate; the plan administrator instead paid approximately $400,000 to Liv based on the existing beneficiary designation.
- The Estate sued the plan administrator and DuPont, asserting Liv had waived her SIP benefits in the divorce decree and that payment to her violated ERISA and the plan.

## Issues

1. Whether ERISA’s anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), makes a former spouse’s divorce-decree waiver of pension benefits (not embodied in a QDRO) void as an assignment or alienation.
2. Whether, regardless of anti-alienation, ERISA requires a plan administrator to pay benefits strictly according to plan documents when a non-QDRO divorce decree purports to waive the named beneficiary’s rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously held that Liv’s waiver did not constitute an “assignment or alienation” barred by ERISA § 1056(d)(1) because it relinquished rights without directing payment to another recipient.
- The Court nonetheless held the plan administrator properly paid Liv because ERISA requires fiduciaries to administer plans in accordance with the plan’s governing documents, which still named Liv as beneficiary.
- The Court affirmed judgment for DuPont, rejecting the Estate’s attempt to recover the benefits from the plan based on the divorce decree.

## Legal Principles

- A waiver that disclaims a right to plan benefits, without purporting to transfer that right to another person, is not an ERISA-prohibited “assignment or alienation” under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1).
- ERISA fiduciaries must act in accordance with the plan’s governing documents; administrators may rely on the plan’s written beneficiary designations and need not enforce inconsistent, external waivers.
- Domestic-relations reallocations of ERISA pension benefits are effectuated through ERISA’s QDRO mechanism or the plan’s prescribed beneficiary-change or disclaimer procedures; general divorce-decree language not implemented through those channels does not control plan payment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that although a former spouse’s divorce-decree waiver is not invalid as an ERISA-forbidden alienation, the plan administrator must pay benefits based on the plan documents when no QDRO or plan-compliant change removes the former spouse as the named beneficiary.


Kennedy v. Plan Adm'r for DuPont Sav. & Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009)