Lawsuit  Updates

AT&T Pension Litigation Status as of October 21 2008, 2008.

The Plaintiffs’ expert statistical report and actuarial reports dated September 22 and 23, 2008 are posted here. These reports show how AT&T’s cash balance design created periods of “wear-away” during which older employees did not earn any additional retirement benefits for an average of almost 8 years, and also analyze the additional losses in benefits for employees who commenced their pension benefits before age 55. The company's reports are due by November 4th, then our rebuttal reports are due by December 2nd.

Chronology of Engers v. AT&T Management Pension Plan, C.A. 98-3660 (D.N.J.):

Judge Hedges rejects AT&T's arguments to exclude expert reports and testimony - August 11, 2005

Summary Judgment Decison received - Friday, March 25, 2006. Judge Linares found for AT&T on two claims of notification: 204h Notice of Reduction and SPD Claim. The Court required a refilling of the Summary Judgment on the Wearaway and 6% Early Retirement Reduction claims. The Court is also requiring that we reenter an appeal to AT&T to exhaust our internal remedies.

Action: The two claims that the Judge found for AT&T will be part of the overall appeal. A Summary Judgment has been refilled requesting a decision on the remaining claims. A petition and possible subsequent appeal to AT&T Pension Administration will be filed.

Attorney's request for the judge to reconsider his decision (PDF READER REQUIRED) - April 17, 2006

Attorney's letter (Notice of Supplemental Authority) to Judge Chesler regarding two relevant precedants (PDF READER REQUIRED) - Nov 2, 2006 

Good news (12/12/2006): Judge Chesler is reinstating the basic age discrimination claims (Claims One and Two) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. City of Jackson. He denied the motion to reinstate the narrower Ninth Claim on the ground that there has been no clear change in the law relating to that claim. However, there is a case pending in the Third Circuit, Register v. PNC Financial, which may clearly change the law related to that claim in the next few months.

In the end of 2006, our attorney refiled the age discrimination claims that had previously been dismissed. They were refiled because of the Court opinions that have occurred in the last year that were favorable to us. For the past few months, our attorney has been responding to AT&T's motions to dismiss. Once this is settled, and the age discrimination claims stand, all parties that are part of the case must be notified.

On May 24, 2007, the Court conditionally certified Claims One and Two of our suit as a collective action under the ADEA. Notices will be mailed to over 40,000 individuals who fit the class definition. They will give those individuals an opportunity to "opt-in" to the collective action by signing a one-page consent to join form. The notices are expected to be mailed before the end of July 2007.

The Court's May 24, 2007 decision. (PDF READER REQUIRED)

January 25, 2008 update: The Engers v. AT&T Class filed 23,938 signed and completed opt-in forms from current and former AT&T employees with the Federal Court on December 27, 2007. To confirm that your opt-in form was received, call (toll free) 1-888-952-9104. Mediation sessions between the class representatives and AT&T were scheduled for January 17 and 18 in New York City. On January 17, 2008, the Plaintiffs' lawyers and two former employees met with a nationally-known mediator and five representatives of AT&T to see if there was a way to resolve this case. Unfortunately, no progress was made and the mediator declared an impasse. The Plaintiffs' experts are now preparing statistical and actuarial reports to show the Court how AT&T's rules about pension "crossover" were a thin-disguise for age discrimination. The trial of the case will take place in Federal court in Newark, New Jersey, but the dates have not yet been set.

July 29, 2008 update: Pursuant a subpoena and a scheduling order from the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, AT&T's consultants, Aon (formerly known as ASA) are being required to produce all data and documentation that they possess related to the cash balance pension plan conversion by August 8, 2008 (for data and technical documentation) and August 15, 2008 (for consulting advice about the changes). Expert reports from the Plaintiffs' actuarial and statistical experts are due September 22, 2008. In those reports, the experts will show how AT&T's cash balance design produced periods of "wear-away" (with no growth in retirement benefits) that were based on how close AT&T employees were to age 55. Plaintiffs allege that the cash balance design was skewed to produce periods of wear-away based on age.
NOTE: These are new dates as a result of the judge granting Aon an extension.

Other Pension Lawsuit Updates

The recent Supreme Court decision on Age Discrimination will have a positive impact on our Cash Balance Pension case.  One of our early setbacks may now become a success.  The ruling, in essence, makes“wearaways” that affect only senior employees illegal.  Thanks to the forethought of one of our members who filed a "timely" EEOC age discrimination complaint in February, 1998, we may be able to enjoy the rewards.  See "High Court Ruling Seen Favoring Older Workers " article published March 5, 2005.

LONG TERM SAVINGS PLAN LAWSUIT - 8/11/05

Age discrimination suits against IBM reinstated (St. Louis Post Dispatch Sept 1, 2006)
A federal appeals court reinstated age discrimination lawsuits against International Business Machines Corp., finding that termination pay agreements were misleading and confusing. Employees laid off as part of the company's 2001 work-force reductions were offered severance pay and benefits in exchange for signing an agreement not to sue IBM. Ten employees at IBM microchip plants who signed the waiver sued the company in San Jose, Calif., after reviewing an information packet from IBM showing the ages of those laid off and those who were retained. The waiver used language that was "unfamiliar to lay people," created "confusion" about employees' rights to sue for age discrimination and was unenforceable, the San Francisco-based court ruled. The ruling opens the door to tens of thousands of age discrimination claims.

Jun 9, 2008: Supreme Court rejected AT&T appeal in (Ameritech) pension case. The Supreme Court on Monday rejected AT&T Inc.'s appeal of a lower court's $31.2 million verdict against the company in a class action lawsuit over retirement benefits. At issue in the case is whether a pension plan administered by Ameritech, a local phone company, improperly reduced retirement benefits paid to an employee in 1999. January 9, 2007: The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a 2004 lower court ruling in January 2007 that Ameritech Corp., acquired by AT&T in 1999, underpaid early retirees by $31 million when they sought to take a lump sum.

Feb 20, 2008: CIGNA Misled Employees, Judge Rules. A New Haven federal court judge has ruled that CIGNA misled its employees about a switch to a new pension plan, and attorneys will now try to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement benefits for thousands of workers. The decision in the 2001 class-action case, issued by Judge Mark R. Kravitz late Friday, concerns CIGNA's conversion from a traditional pension plan with defined benefits to a "cash balance" plan, starting in 1998. For further info, see CIGNA Pension Plan Class Action Lawsuit

Jul 29, 2008: Agreement Reached in AT&T Pension Calculation Lawsuit. Attorneys for a class of participants in the AT&T Pension Plan today announced an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed in 2003 under which the AT&T Pension Plan will pay a total of $16 million to settle a claim that it miscalculated the pension benefits owed to some non-bargained (management) retirees of certain AT&T companies who retired under a 2000 early retirement window known as the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program. The federal court lawsuit in Washington, D.C., Wagener, et al. v. SBC Pension Benefit Plan-NonBargained Program, Civ. Action No. 03-00769 (D.D.C.) (RCL), alleged that the Plan (since renamed the AT&T Pension Plan), incorrectly omitted pay earned for work performed during an averaging period used as one component in the calculation of retirees' pensions for retirees entitled to one of several pension options.