18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 341 every action taken by the appointed fiduciaries. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. (x) ERISA Class Action Litigation Over Retiree/Employee Benefits Baleja, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140614 (C.D. Cal. March 26, 2021). Plaintiff, a group of pension plan beneficiaries, filed a class action alleging that Defendants reduced their pension benefits due to off-sets in violation of the ERISA. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgement, and the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions. Plaintiff argued that the off-sets that reduced his pension and the pensions of others were invalid because of: (i) defective notice; and (ii) cutbacks to the Plan. The Court noted that the core of Plaintiff’s disclosure claim was predicated on the ERISA’s provision forbidding pension plans from misleading participants and beneficiaries. Plaintiffs alleged that when the Plan was amended in 1986, "no one mentioned" to class members that their future benefits would be off-set. Id. at *26. Defendant argued that the claim was not timely-filled, as it was predicated on events which occurred more than 30 years ago. The Court agreed that unless Plaintiffs established fraud or concealment, Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. The Court held that Defendants had met their summary judgment burden to identify that there was no dispute of material fact regarding a total absence of evidence that Defendants committed fraud or concealment sufficient to revive the disclosure claims. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and denied Plaintiffs’ motion on the defective notice claim. In addition, the Court determined when an ERISA plan grants discretion to the plan administrator, the standard of review is for an abuse of discretion. The Court concluded that since there were no facts as to how the interest rate and calculations were disclosed with regard to the off-set, summary judgment would not be appropriate for either party on the cutback claim. Accordingly, the Court denied the motions to this claim. In sum, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement. Bellon, et al. v. PPG Employment, Life & Other Benefits, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119483 (N.D. W.Va. June 28, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") merged with Georgia Gulf to create a separate public company named Axiall Corp. ("Axiall") and thereby violated various provisions of the ERISA. Further, Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract against PPG and violation of fiduciary duty against PPG and the PPG Plan Administrator. Id . at *2. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all Plaintiffs’ claims. PPG argued that Plaintiffs were not participants in the PPG plan at the time their benefits were terminated, and PPG was not the entity that terminated their benefits. Id . at *8. The Court agreed. It found that as part of the merger transaction, PPG closed the transaction with Georgia Gulf that created Axiall and thus divested itself of the commercial chemical portion of its operations to which Plaintiffs previously belonged. Id . Axiall also assumed responsibility for certain benefits of PPG’s former employees, and provided Plaintiffs with the retiree life insurance benefits at issue, which it later terminated. Id . at *9. As a result, the Court concluded that PPG could not be sued for Axiall’s decision to terminate Plaintiffs’ benefits under a plan managed by Axiall. The Court further reasoned that several of Plaintiffs’ causes of action were not timely filed and thereby it granted summary judgment as to those claims. Finally, the Court held that PPG and the Plan administrator were not acting as fiduciaries by transferring liabilities under the Axiall transaction and were not liable. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Blenko, et al. v. Cabell Huntington Hospital, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195023 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 8, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of retirement plan participants, filed a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the ERISA and seeking a preliminary injunction barring Defendant from unilaterally amending their retirement plan. The Court denied the motion. Defendant was the administrator of the employee welfare benefit plans and operated a unified health and welfare plan for active workers and retirees from 1955 through 2019 (“Plan 501”). Id . at *2. The Plan contained a "Reservation of Right" provision, which stated that, although Defendant planned to continue the Plan indefinitely, it reserved the right to amend, modify, change, or terminate the Plan at any time and for any reason. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not informed of Defendant’s right to terminate retiree welfare benefits. Plaintiffs contended that the Plan initially covered premiums for retiree welfare benefits through Plaintiffs’ lifetimes once they had met the conditions for retirement. In January of 2021, Defendant informed plan participants that, effective after age 65, retirees would no longer have coverage under the Plan and that before age 65 retirees would be charged a premium to cover a portion of the cost of coverage under the Plan if they