|
Notice of Class Certification and Opportunity to Join Collective Action Mailed to All Class Members on April 28, 2011
Based on the Court’s January 4, 2011 ruling that the case can proceed as a class action and collective action (see the posting below), a Notice was mailed on April 28, 2011 to all individuals who have been identified as members of the class.
If you are a Class member, please carefully read the Notice and complete and return the “Consent Form” found on the last page in order to join the collective action for the age discrimination claim. The Legal Team strongly recommends that every class member complete and send in the Consent Form so that the age discrimination claim will cover you.
There is another action that you may need to take. The Court ruled against class certification for the retirees’ alternative claim that Sprint and Embarq systematically misrepresented that the retiree benefits were lifetime. These claims for “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” can provide an alternative to the claims for restoration of benefits and age discrimination. But claims for “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” must be filed on an individual basis. As stated on page 2 of the Notice, you should immediately contact the Legal Team (or another lawyer of your choice) if you believe that you may have a basis for a Breach of Fiduciary Duty claim. You can call the Legal Team at 1-800-511-1104 to request a Questionnaire so that you can submit your information to the Legal Team for their review and further action.
Date of Last Update: May 2, 2011
|
January 4, 2011 Court Ruling Granting Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Action and Collective Action
In January 2009, the retirees’ legal team filed two motions to make this case a class action and collective action. The first motion formally asked the Court to make this case a “class action” on the federal benefits law (ERISA) claims and the state law claims for age discrimination. The second motion formally asked the Court to allow a “collective action” on the federal law age discrimination claims.
On January 4, 2011, after additional lengthy briefing and a hearing before Judge Eric F. Melgren on September 8, 2010, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order certifying the class as a class action for the federal ERISA claims to restore the retiree medical, prescription drug and life insurance benefits. Judge Melgren also ruled that the case can proceed as a class action on the state law claims for age discrimination. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all retirees and eligible spouses and other dependents who fit the class description are now part of the case without any need for a specific action on their part.
The Court also ruled in favor of our motion to certify a collective action on the federal law age discrimination claims. Under the different procedures for a collective action, Judge Melgren 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. That Notice was mailed on April 28, 2011 and is posted above. Please carefully read the Notice and complete and return the “Consent Form” found on the last page in order to join the collective action for the age discrimination claim.
Judge Melgren ruled against class certification for the retirees’ alternative claim that Sprint and Embarq systematically misrepresented that the retiree benefits were lifetime. These claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty can provide an alternative to the claims for restoration of benefits and age discrimination claims but must be filed on an individual basis. As stated in the Notice (above), you should immediately contact the Legal Team (or another lawyer of your choice) if you believe that you may have a basis for a Breach of Fiduciary Duty claim.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Court’s Memorandum and Order dated January 4, 2011, click on the tab for “Court Rulings” on the left side of the page.
Date of Last Update: May 2, 2011
|
|
July 28, 2010 Court Ruling Taking Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Action and Collective Action Under Advisement
On January 29, 2009, the retirees’ legal team 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.
The second motion 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 legal briefing of these motions was completed on October 20, 2009, pursuant to the Court’s August 25, 2009 Order denying defendants’ motion to postpone the briefing and decision on the motions for class and collective action certification.
On November 12, 2009, Class Counsel filed a Third Amended Complaint adding new plaintiffs and additional proposed class representatives. In light of this Third Amended Complaint, the Court, acting through Judge Eric F. Melgren, ordered Class Counsel to re-file the motions for class and collective action, and a new round of briefing was submitted on the re-filed motions. That briefing was completed in February 2010.
On July 29, 2010, Judge Melgren issued a Memorandum and Order asking the attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants to appear at a September 8, 2010 hearing to answer some of the judge’s questions concerning the motions for class and collective action certification. Judge Melgren will decide whether some or all of claims in the case can go forward as a class and collective action sometime following the September 8th hearing.
All retirees, their spouses and dependents are invited to attend the hearing. It is scheduled for September 8, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 440 in the Kansas City, Kansas Federal Courthouse, 500 State Ave, 259 U.S. Courthouse, Kansas City, KS 66101.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 28, 2010, click on the tab for “Court Rulings” on the left side of this page.
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Age Discrimination Claims
On October 8, 2009, Defendants filed a “motion to dismiss” asking the Court to dismiss certain claims in the case that allege that the reduction and termination of retiree life insurance benefits violated state and federal age discrimination laws.
Class Counsel filed their memorandum opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 30, 2009. Defendants filed their reply memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2009.
In a decision dated July 2, 2010, the Court, acting through Judge Eric F. Melgren, noted that this was defendants’ third attempt to dismiss the age discrimination claims (twice under a “motion to dismiss” and once under a “motion for summary judgment”). Judge Melgren again denied defendants’ latest motion, concluding that plaintiffs have adequately stated their claims under the federal and state age discrimination laws.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the the Court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 2, 2010, click on the tab for “Court Rulings” on the left side of this page.
Scheduling Order Issued by Court on May 18, 2010
On May 18, 2010, the Court, acting through Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, entered a Third Amended Scheduling Order for this case. The Scheduling Order sets deadlines and due dates for various steps in the case. The Third Amended Scheduling Order sets the following main deadlines: (a) complete fact discovery (exchange and development of information) by October 1, 2010; (b) complete expert witness discovery by March 4, 2011; (c) file motions for summary judgment asking for a final ruling before trial on claims or issues by April 8, 2011; and (d) commencement of trial on October 11, 2011.
An amended Scheduling Order was required due to the large amount of documents produced by defendants, and the many depositions of the class representatives and defense witnesses that need to be taken. Magistrate Judge O’Hara previously amended the initial Scheduling Order on January 6, 2010 and February 26, 2010 due to the fact that defendants needed additional time to produce documents pursuant to the November 24, 2009 court decision ordering defendants to produce additional documents.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Third Amended Scheduling Order dated May 18, 2010, click on the “Court Rulings” tab on the left side of this page.
Seventeen (17) Class Representatives Gave Deposition Testimony, Produced Documents and Answered Written Questions From Defendants
From May 24 to June 18, 2010, seventeen (17) class representatives, who will represent all retirees and eligible spouses and other dependents who fall within the class descriptions if the Court grants plaintiffs’ motions for class and collective action, attended in-person questioning by defendants’ attorneys under the deposition process. The depositions took place near each class representative’s home in North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Ohio and Oregon. These class representatives also provided the documents they had which were responsive to defendants’ requests and answered written questions posed by defendants.
Class Counsel is now preparing to take the depositions of defense witnesses, including executives in the Sprint and Embarq benefits departments. To date, defendants have produced for review by the Legal Team approximately 200,000 pages of documents.
Date of Last Update: August 5, 2010
|
|
November 24, 2009 Court Decision Ordering Defendants to Produce Additional Documents
On July 27, 2009, Class Counsel filed a “motion to compel” asking the Court to order the defendants to turn over 20 categories of documents, including emails and other electronic documents, from Embarq, Sprint and their predecessor companies because they could be a source of relevant evidence in the case. The defendants had refused to produce these documents and opposed the motion. The Court, acting through Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, granted our motion in an Order dated November 24, 2009. The Order requires the defendants to produce all but one of the categories of documents by January 11, 2010.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Order dated November 24, 2009, click on the “Court Rulings” tab on the left side of this page.
Last Update: November 25, 2009
|
Retirees’ Motions for Class Action and Collective Action filed January 29, 2009 – Awaiting Court Decision
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.
On February 24, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to postpone the briefing and decision on the motions to certify the class action and collective action. The Court, acting through U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, denied this defense motion in a Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009. If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009, click on “Court Rulings” tab on the left side of this page.
As directed by the Court, the defendants filed their memorandum opposing the class certification and collective action motion on September 22, 2009. Class Counsel filed their reply briefs on the class certification and collective action motion on October 20, 2009. The briefing of this motion is now complete and the parties are awaiting a decision by the Court.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of any of the briefs supporting or opposing the certification of the class action or collective action, click on “Court Filings” tab on the left side of this page.
Last Update: November 10, 2009
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment – Court Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Postpone Motion Due to Incomplete Documents and Information from Defendants
On March 2, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for partial “summary judgment” asking the Court to dismiss most of the claims in the case for lack of legal or factual support.
Class Counsel filed their memorandum opposing the defense motion for partial summary judgment on April 7, 2009. They also filed a motion asking the Court to postpone consideration of any summary judgment motion due to the fact that discovery of documents and information from the defendants was incomplete.
Defendants filed both a reply memorandum supporting their motion for partial summary judgment and their memorandum opposing the motion to postpone summary judgment on May 29, 2009. Class Counsel filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to postpone on June 18, 2009.
The Court, acting through U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to postpone summary judgment proceedings, and denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (without prejudice to its being re-filed later in the case), in a Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009. If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009, click on the “Court Rulings” tab on the left side of this page.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of any of the briefs supporting or opposing the motion for partial summary judgment or the motion to postpone its consideration, click on the click on “Court Filings” tab on the left side of this page.
Last Update: November 10, 2009
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.
|
|
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
|
|
|