Renaker Hasselman Scott, together with co-counsel Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and DeBofsky Sherman Casciari Reynolds, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of three former NFL players — Lance Brown, Amon Gordon, and Charles Grant — to protect former players’ disability benefits against drastic reductions provided for by the 2020 NFL collective bargaining agreement. As of January 1, 2015, certain disability benefits were transferred from the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, which does not allow benefit reductions, to the NFL Player Disability and Neurocognitive Benefit Plan, which does allow benefit reductions. The plaintiffs allege that at the time of the transfer, they had already vested in the right to receive disability benefits from the Retirement Plan, and the transfer violated these contractually vested rights. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated players who vested under the Retirement Plan before January 1, 2015, but whose disability benefits are being paid or may be paid in the future from the Disability Plan.

The 2020 collective bargaining agreement calls for amending the Disability Plan to institute a reduction of players’ total and permanent disability benefit amounts by the amount of Social Security disability insurance benefits they receive, beginning January 1, 2021, and eliminate eligibility determinations based on Social Security disability eligibility, effective April 1, 2024, among other changes.

Read the complaint here.

Renaker Hasselman Scott, together with Professor Norman Stein, filed a friend-of-the-court brief (amicus curiae brief) on behalf of seven law professors in The ERISA Industry Committee v. City of Seattle, pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case concerns the ERISA Industry Committee’s challenge to a Seattle ordinance that requires large hotel employers and ancillary businesses to make “healthcare expenditures” on behalf of employees. The expenditures can consist of payments to a third party, such as an insurer, for the purpose of providing healthcare services; or to the employer’s own healthcare plan; or directly to the employees. Rejecting ERIC’s argument that the ordinance is preempted by ERISA, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The law professors’ brief urges the Ninth Circuit to affirm the district court’s ruling.

Read the brief here.

Together with the Stanford Religious Liberty Clinic, Renaker Hasselman Scott represents a Los Angeles County employee on claims that the County and the Administrative Committees of its two defined contribution retirement plans unlawfully discriminated against him and violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by refusing his requests to allow him to participate in the plans in a manner consistent with his Muslim religious beliefs. The plaintiff seeks to adhere to tenets of Islamic finance that prohibit certain types of investments, such as investments in alcohol, tobacco, and no-risk bonds. Islamic-compliant mutual funds available on the market conform to these restrictions, but each of the two retirement plans requires that a participant maintain a $25,000 balance in the plan’s “core funds” before he can access mutual fund investments through the plan’s brokerage window, and the core funds do not comply with Islamic finance principles. The plans refused the plaintiff’s requests that they waive or reduce the core funds investment requirement to enable him to participate. The court ruled on November 2, 2020, that claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution may go forward.

The case is Syed v. County of Los Angeles, No 2:19-cv-10410-GW-KES (C.D. Cal.).

On May 5, 2020, the California Superior Court, Alameda County, granted certification of a class of former University of California employees who left UC employment before normal retirement age, but with vested pension rights. The plaintiffs allege that fiduciaries of the the University of California Retirement Plan, or “UCRP,” breached duties owed to the plaintiffs and the Class by failing to notify them that they would lose retirement benefits if they did not apply to commence their pensions by age 60. The case is Mass, et al. v. the Regents of the University of California, et al. Renaker Hasselman Scott LLP and co-counsel Nichols Kaster LLP represent the named plaintiffs and the Class. 

Specifically, the Class is defined as all 1976 Tier or Multi-Tier members of the UCRP, who: (1) have reached the age of 60; (2) have separated from employment with a UCRP-participating employer; (3) at the time of separation, met the requirements of Plan Section 3.08 and became an Inactive Member; and (4) either (a) submitted a claim for Retirement Income or a Lump Sum Cash-Out after their 60th birthday and no earlier than October 18, 2013, or (b) have not yet submitted a claim to receive Retirement Income or a Lump Sum Cash-Out.

The UCRP benefit formula uses an age factor that is capped at age 60, meaning that for vested UCRP members who are no longer current employees, the monthly benefit amount does not increase after age 60 and the actuarial equivalent lump sum value decreases after age 60. The two named plaintiffs each lost over $100,000 of hard-earned pension benefits because they first applied to start their pensions after age 60 and the UCRP refused to pay retroactive benefits.

Read the Order Granting Class Certification here.

Read the Order Granting Approval of Class Notice here.

Read the Class Notice here.

For more information on this case, please contact Kirsten Scott, kirsten@renakerhasselman.com.user.s408.sureserver.com.

In litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Renaker Hasselman Scott LLP represents a ConocoPhillips retiree suing ConocoPhillips, the Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan, and Alight Solutions LLC, the third-party administrator of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan. Erroneous pension benefit statements provided to the plaintiff on multiple occasions over several years showed a pension amount that was more than double his actual benefit, and it was not until he applied to commence his pension that the participant learned the true amount.

Read the complaint here.

The Pension Rights Center and the National Employment Lawyers Association weighed in as amici curiae in support of the plaintiffs-appellants in Bafford, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al., currently pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Bafford, Northrop Grumman retirees who received incorrect pension benefit statements for years before their retirements, and relied on the incorrect statements in retiring, challenge Northrop Grumman’s post-retirement reduction of their pensions. Renaker Hasselman Scott LLP and Kantor & Kantor, LLP, represent the retirees in Bafford.

Read the amicus brief here.

Renaker Hasselman Scott LLP represents a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants in a court challenge to the termination of his benefits under the AICPA Insurance Trust Long Term Disability Income Plan, which is insured by The Prudential Insurance Company of America. The AICPA Plan provides a lifetime benefit for participants who become disabled before the contract anniversary following the participant’s 50th birthday, while benefits for members who become disabled after this contract anniversary end when the participant reaches age 65. In the pending litigation, the certificate of insurance issued to the participant showed an effective date of coverage, which the participant understood to be the contract anniversary, and his disability began before the anniversary of that date following his 50th birthday. However, Prudential terminated his benefits at age 65, contending that the contract anniversary was actually an earlier date: the anniversary date of the current group policy, established in the contract between AICPA and Prudential, which was not disclosed to the participant. The suit seeks to enforce California law holding that insurers are bound by the terms set forth in the certificate of insurance provided to the insured, and that benefits limitations must be conspicuous, plain, and clear.

Read the complaint here.

The partners of Renaker Hasselman Scott LLP have been recognized in the 2020 edition of Super Lawyers and the 27th edition of The Best Lawyers in America. All three partners were selected as Super Lawyers in the Employee Benefits field. Margo Hasselman Greenough and Teresa Renaker were also selected to the Super Lawyers list of Top 50 Women Lawyers in Northern California, and Teresa Renaker was selected to the Top 100 Lawyers in Northern California list. Teresa Renaker was also recognized by The Best Lawyers in America for her high caliber of work in the practice area of Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law.

Renaker Hasselman Scott filed suit on behalf of a participant in the Estee Lauder Companies 401(k) Savings Plan whose account was decimated by a series of three unauthorized distributions in September and October 2016. The plaintiff alleges that the plan administrator, third-party recordkeeper, and trustee each breached its ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to safeguard the plan assets against theft, including by failing to notify her of the distribution requests before making the distributions.

Read the complaint here.

Read additional coverage:

Participant Sues Estee Lauder Over 401(k) Security Breach

Recordkeeper, Plan Sponsor Charged in 401k Account Theft

Nearly $100,000 Stolen From Participant in Estee Lauder 401(k) Plan 

Teresa Renaker will speak at ALI CLE’s annual advanced course on Employee Benefit Plans of Tax-Exempt and Governmental Employers, to be held October 24 and 25, 2019, in Washington, D.C. Ms. Renaker will join a panel on “Counselling Clients Through the Claims Process With an Eye Toward Litigation.” View the course brochure here.