Scheduling Order Issued by Court on February 6, 2009
On February 6, 2009. the Court, acting through presiding Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, entered the initial Scheduling Order for this case. The Scheduling Order sets deadlines and due dates for various steps in the case before a trial occurs. The Scheduling Order sets the following main deadlines: (a) complete fact discovery (exchange and development of information) by January 29, 2010; (b) complete expert witness discovery by July 1, 2010; (c) file motions for summary judgment asking for a final ruling before trial on claims or issues by August 31, 2010; and (d) commencement of trial on March 1, 2011.
This is a complex case. The legal team determined that this schedule was necessary to afford adequate time to prepare the case for the retirees, who worked in many states over a long period of time.
To view, download, or print-out a copy of the Scheduling Order dated February 6, 2009, click on the “Court Rulings” tab on the left side of the page.
Retirees’ Motions for Class Action and Collective Action filed January 29, 2009
As scheduled, on January 29, 2009 the plaintiffs’ legal team for the retirees filed two motions to make this case a class action and collective action. The first motion formally asks the Court to make this case a “class action” on the federal benefits law (ERISA) claims and the state law claims for age discrimination. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the motion is successful all retirees and eligible spouses and other dependents who fit the class description will become part of the case without any need for a specific action on their part. A different set of rules applies to the retirees’ second motion asking for a “collective action” for purposes of the federal law age discrimination claims.
The retirees’ second motion filed on January 29, 2009 formally asks the Court to allow a “collective action” on the federal law age discrimination claims. Under the different procedures for a collective action, if the motion is successful the Court at a later date will authorize a notice to be mailed to the retirees informing them of their right to “opt-in” and join the collective action by completing and returning a simple form. Until that notice is received, there is no action that anyone needs to take to join the collective action.
The defendants’ briefs opposing both the motion for class certification and the motion for collective action will be filed by March 2, 2009. The retirees will then have until April 1, 2009 to file their reply briefs.
To view, download, or print-out a copy of the legal memorandum in support of the retirees’ motion for class certification or the retirees’ motion for collective action, or the exhibits to either memorandum, click on the “Court Filings” tab on the left side of the page.
Date of Last Update: February 19, 2009
|
|
December 2, 2008 Court Decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
On December 2, 2008, Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil issued a Decision on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss certain claims in the case. The decision allows most of the retirees’ claims to now proceed to discovery and possible trial.
Regarding the claims under the federal pension and benefits law, ERISA, the decision denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on their argument that the retirees had no legal basis to claim in Count One of the Amended Complaint that their benefits were protected. Reciting detailed allegations that the defendants described the benefits as lasting for life (pages 4-7), which must be assumed to be true at this stage of the case, the court ruled that the retirees’ allegations of lifetime benefits were adequate (pages 12-14) and concluded that “defendants have not shown that plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claim that they have a vested right” to the benefits (page 14). The court also ruled that the presence of boilerplate “reservation clauses” had to be considered in light of other company statements that the benefits would last until death (page 15). The defendants did not challenge the retirees’ alternative claim in Count Two that the companies misrepresented the benefits and this claim was not addressed in the December 2, 2008 ruling.
The court did grant the motion to dismiss a part of the claim in Count Three, for declaratory relief under the ERISA law, because it was duplicative of the claim to restore the benefits in Count One (pages 16-19).
Regarding the age discrimination claims in Count Four, the court ruled that new, controversial regulations issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2007 were valid and exempted employer termination of medical and drug benefits based on a person’s Medicare eligibility from any claim under the federal age discrimination law, so the federal age discrimination claims relating to cut-off of medical and drug benefits were dismissed (pages 23-29). The ERISA claims about the medical and drug cutoffs remain in the case, however.
The court also ruled that the EEOC regulations did not apply to or affect the retirees’ federal age discrimination claims about the life insurance benefits, so those claims could proceed (page 22). Finally, the court ruled that the defendants presented no basis to dismiss state law age discrimination claims in Counts Five through Seven under the laws of several states and also allowed these claims to proceed (page 29).
To view, download, or print-out a copy of the Opinion and Order dated December 2, 2008, click on the “Court Rulings” tab on the left side of the page.
The case will now proceed to the “discovery” phase, which involves obtaining documents and other information from the defendants, responding to the defendants’ requests for documents and information, and the taking of pretrial testimony in the form of depositions.
Following the issuance of the decision, Chief Judge Vratil directed that the retirees’ lawsuit be re-assigned to newly-appointed U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Judge Melgren is based in Wichita, Kansas.
Date of Last Update: December 4, 2008
As scheduled, on June 23, 2008, the attorneys for the defendants filed their reply memorandum in further support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
To view, download, or print-out a copy of the defendants’ reply memorandum, click on the “Court Filings” tab on the left side of the page.
Date of Last Update: June 25, 2008
As scheduled, on May 30, 2008, the attorneys for the plaintiff retirees filed their memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants will file a reply memorandum around June 22, 2008.
To view, download, or print-out a copy of either the plaintiffs’ legal memorandum explaining the reasons why the case should not be dismissed, or the exhibits to the memorandum, click on the “Court Filings” tab on the left side of the page.
Date of Last Update: June 2, 2008
As scheduled, on April 30, 2008, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss several claims in the lawsuit. They also filed an Answer responding to the facts stated in the Amended Complaint and to Count Two of the Amended Complaint claiming a breach of fiduciary duty. A motion to dismiss is a request to the Court to rule that a legal claim cannot be established under any possible set of facts. The retirees’ memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss will be filed by May 30, 2008. The defendants will then have the option to file a reply memorandum.
To view, download, or print a copy of the defendants’ legal memorandum explaining their Motion to Dismiss, click on the “Court Filings” tab on the left side of the page.
To view, download, or print a copy of the defendants’ Answer, click on the “Complaint and Answer” tab on the left side of the page.
Date of Last Update: May 6, 2008
On March 31, 2008, Class Counsel filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of the retirees.
The Amended Complaint adds claims under the federal statute against age discrimination, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and under state anti-discrimination statutes in Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee. Additional plaintiffs were added to the lawsuit for this purpose. Claims under other state anti-discrimination laws will be added as the case moves forward. The Amended Complaint also refines the previous claims under the federal pension law, ERISA.
Under an agreed schedule with the defendants that has been approved by the Court, the defendants will file by April 30, 2008 their motion to dismiss some or all of the claims on legal grounds. Motions of this kind are typical at the start of a lawsuit.
The March 31, 2008 Amended Complaint can be viewed, downloaded or printed out by clicking on the “Complaint and Answer” tab.
Last Update: March 31, 2008
|
|
|