IS XEROX BREAKING THE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT ?

Toner News Mobile Forums Toner News Main Forums IS XEROX BREAKING THE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT ?

Date: Wednesday July 13, 2011 09:02:40 am
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Anonymous
    Inactive

    IS XEROX BREAKING THE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT ?

    A group of Xerox Corp. retirees suing the company over retirement benefits has an Aug. 4 deadline to prepare its argument for appealing a legal defeat.U.S. District Court Judge David G. Larimer dismissed the lawsuit by the retirees against Xerox and its retiree health care plans.

    The lawsuit, filed in 2009, was in response to Xerox’s announcement in 2008 that it was making sizable cuts to the benefits it provides retirees, including no longer providing benefits to those ages 65 and up as of 2010. Those changes only affected Xerox’s Flex health plan, which covers retirees who left the company from 1995 on.

    The retirees argue that Xerox essentially guaranteed lifetime coverage to its workers dating back to CEO Joseph C. Wilson, who headed the company from 1946 to 1967, and that the cuts violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

    The lawsuit sought a court order barring the company from making any further cuts to coverage, restoring the benefits that were eliminated, and reimbursing retirees for any benefits they have been denied.

    Xerox responded that the plaintiffs did not have proper legal standing to sue, that their lawsuit was not filed in a timely fashion, and that the 2008 announcement was not materially different from changes Xerox had made to its benefits in 2003. Larimer, in his April ruling, agreed.

    And while the defendants filed a variety of materials, including an old, undated letter from Wilson, to bolster their claim Xerox had long promised its workers lifetime coverage, "the documents could not reasonably have been interpreted as containing any promises," Larimer wrote. "And even if they could be so construed, the facts … do not show that any promises contained in the documents were breached by defendants."

    Days after Larimer’s ruling, the plaintiffs filed a notice indicating they intended to appeal. That’s the next step on which the clock is now ticking.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.