DuPont Retirement Class Action Win for Plaintiffs
After a six day bench trial held during June and September, 2024, on December 18, 2024, the Honorable Michael M. Baylson found in Plaintiffs’ favor on Count II (Claim for Benefits and to Clarify Benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) by the Optional Retirement Class), Count IV (Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, 29 U.S.C. § 1104, and Breach of Co-Fiduciary Duty, 29 U.S.C. § 1105 by both the Optional Retirement Class and the Early Retirement Class), and Count VI (Claim for Impermissible Cutback of Accrued Pension Benefits, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g) by the Optional Retirement Class) of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in this litigation.
The Early Retirement Class is comprised of those who were under age 50 with at least 15 years of service with E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (“Historical DuPont”) as of May 31, 2019 and transferred to the newly created DuPont (“New DuPont”) at the time of the spin-off on June 1, 2019, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off by New DuPont until they reached the age of 50.
The Optional Retirement Class is comprised of those over 50 with at least 15 years of service with Historical DuPont as of May 31, 2019, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off, by New DuPont. The Optional Retirement Class does not include anyone whose Early Retirement Benefits at spin-off would be equal to, or greater than their Optional Retirement Benefit.
Ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor on Count II, the Court found that
[T]he Plan language unambiguously requires Optional Retirement Benefits and that the Administrative Committee’s interpretation of Optional Retirement controverts the Plan’s plain language.
The Court also found in Plaintiffs’ favor on Count VI, the anti-cutback claim. Relying on Third Circuit case law, the court concluded that
The Administrative Committee’s interpretation of the spin-off vis-à-vis the Optional Retirement Benefit—which was arbitrary and capricious—had the effect of amending the Plan and cutting back Optional Retirement Class Members’ benefits.
Finally, in finding for Plaintiffs on Count IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), the Court concluded that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to both the Optional Retirement Class and the Early Retirement Class:
[D]efendants never even informed Plan participants in any communications before the spin-off that Optional Retirement Benefits would no longer be available due to the spin-off. The complete omission of any explanation of how the spin-off affected the Optional Retirement Benefit . . . constituted a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Optional Retirement Class.
[D]efendants’ communications and the SPD [Summary Plan Description] would not inform an Early Retirement Class Member of the fact that they were terminated. In sum, while the Plan interpretation was not unreasonable, Defendants nonetheless breached their duties to communicate that Plan interpretation clearly to the Early Retirement Class, thus breaching their fiduciary duties.
You can read the Memorandum of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Liability here.
The initial bench trial was limited to issues of liability. Judge Baylson has appointed Richard L. Bazelon, Esq. as Special Master in this case to oversee the next phase of the trial.
For more information about this case, please email us at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com, call us at (203) 504-8425, or contact us using our contact form.
