18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 343 benefits and pension supplements. Id . at *3. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs released all claims against Defendants and that some of Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. Defendants asserted that the claims were all based on Defendants’ general release contained in their severance agreements. The Court noted that Plaintiffs made only one small reference to the agreements in their complaint, and did not include the agreements as attachments. The Court determined that in reviewing the complaint, Plaintiffs were pursuing claims for violation of the terms of Defendants’ retirement plan, breach of fiduciary duty under the ERISA, illegal cutbacks and elimination of accrued pension benefits in violation of the ERISA, and reformation of Defendants’ retirement plan to correct a drafting error. Id . at *6. The Court ruled that the claims Plaintiffs were pursuing were not based on the releases in question, but rather on Defendants’ retirement plan. Defendants also argued that as to Plaintiffs Fiore and Wales, their claims were time-barred. The Court determined Plaintiffs could not have previously known in 2016 that they might be entitled to Change in Control benefits or other allegedly omitted benefits. Id . at *5. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Glynn, et al. v. Martin Sports & Entertainment, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179691 (D. Mass. Sept. 21, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of trustees and fiduciaries of Defendants’ ERISA plans, filed a class action alleging that Defendant Martin Sports & Entertainment, LLC ("Martin Sports") failed to pay plan contributions in accordance with terms of a collective bargaining agreement between Martin Sports and International Alliance of Stage Employees, Local 11 ("Local 11") in violation of the ERISA for work performed by Local 11 members. Defendants argued that the ERISA claim was governed by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), and should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants did not dispute that the collective bargaining agreement included terms for employer contributions to the Funds, but argued that before reaching the question of whether Defendants owed such contributions, the Court must resolve questions requiring interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. The Court disagreed. It explained that Congress enacted § 515 to "permit trustees of plans to recover delinquent contributions efficaciously, and without regard to issues which might arise under labor- management relations law – other than 29 U.S.C. § 186." Id . at *4. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the ERISA claims. Plaintiffs also filed claims under the Massachusetts Weekly Wage Act, which Defendant argued were preempted by § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). However, the Court opined that Plaintiffs asserted that they were not paid for work performed and Defendant did not dispute the collective bargaining agreement’s terms that set out the wage rates. For these reasons, the Court held that the LMRA did not preempt Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Grosso, et al. v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98804 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of participants in AT&T’s Pension Benefit Plan, filed a class action alleging that Defendants, the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan ("Plan") and AT&T Services Inc., as Plan Administrator ("Plan Administrator"), denied Plaintiffs’ requests for retroactive unreduced pension benefits, starting at age 55, in violation of the ERISA. The Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded the case to the AT&T Benefit Plan Committee ("BPC"), which again denied Plaintiffs’ requests. On the parties’ subsequent cross- motions for summary judgment, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and denied Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs sought unreduced early retirement benefits retroactive to age 55. The benefits prospectively began at age 65, and if a participant wished to take the benefits early, they would receive them after they provided notice to commence the benefits. The BPC found that the 1998 Plan required participants to submit a written election to become entitled to receive unreduced pension benefits before age 65, and therefore the benefits were only after age 55 only upon receipt of the written notice, not retroactively. The Plan Administrator rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that a participant could defer commencement of their benefit until after age 55 and then receive a retroactive lump sum payment of their benefits from age 55 to the date of their election. Id . at *3. The BPC based its denial on its review of the 1998 Plan and several pieces of extrinsic evidence, including a 1998 Summary Plan Description, which stated both that Plan participants must notify the Pension Service Center in order to commence their benefits and that participants would not receive retroactive payments if the form was received at a later date. Id . at *6. The Court therefore determined that the decision to deny retroactive payments was not made in error and was supported by the extrinsic evidence. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgement and denied Plaintiffs’ motion.