Retirees file suit against Union Square over benefits
The original complaint was filed on
The credit union, in its response to the complaint, said the benefit plan was not protected by ERISA and was always subject to change, as per the employee handbook.
The plaintiffs in the case are
The suit alleges Union Square was in "blatant violation of its fiduciary duties under ERISA" when it canceled the retiree benefits in
The retiree benefit, which was created in
"... the Amendment completely eliminated all post-retirement benefits," the plaintiffs argued. "Although Defendant changed the Plan in 2009 to reserve Defendant the discretion to change the Plan, Defendant did not provide any notice to Plaintiffs who had all already retired in reliance on the benefits continuing for life."
The plaintiffs claim they were reassured before they retired by officials at Union Square that the benefits would be available for life. Hawthorne retired in 2006; Christoff in 2005; Moss in 2007; Foster in 2008; and Johnson in 2008.
The defendants in their
"Defendant admits only that it previously offered its retirees certain benefits which were always subject to Defendant's right to modify the benefits, that the benefits were described in the Defendant's handbook, and that many of the Plaintiffs participated in the adoption of the policy, changes to the policy and confirmation of Defendant's right to modify the benefits described in the policy," the response said.
The defendants later wrote, "Defendant admits only that pursuant to Defendant's policy providing for certain benefits to retirees, one of the benefits prior to
The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to recalculate the retirees' retirement benefits and immediately pay benefits that have been withheld from the time the plan was changed. They also ask for "monetary relief and such other relief" from loss of benefits, exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.
The defendant has also filed a motion to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs have not and cannot provide facts that would show the credit union offered an ERISA plan; the retiree benefit plan is not covered by ERISA because it did not have an ongoing administrative program; and the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of the credit union providing false representation.
Follow
___
(c)2017 the Times Record News (Wichita Fallas, Texas)
Visit the Times Record News (Wichita Fallas, Texas) at www.timesrecordnews.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Blair & Ramirez LLP Defeat Cigna Health Insurance’s Arbitration Agreement
Inaugural class of distinguished Norwin alumni announced
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News