DUPONT RETIREMENT BENEFITS CLASS ACTION

Cockerill, et al. v. Corteva, Inc. DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC, et al.

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case No. 21-cv-03966-MMB

If you received a class notice regarding this litigation in May/June 2024, you do not need to do anything further at this time. A copy of the Class Notice can be found here.

If you are unsure of whether you are a member of either the Early Retirement Class or the Optional Retirement Class, you can complete the inquiry form found on the Kantor & Kantor website, and we will be happy to provide you with additional information. The form can be found here.

You can also email Lisa Salmons, Esq. at lisa@edwardstonelaw.com for more information.

Update as of June 11, 2025 – Final Judgment for Plaintiffs

The Court entered a Final Judgment on May 30, 2025, in favor of Plaintiffs in this case after granting two motions clarifying previous orders with respect to attorneys’ fees and eligibility for participants with breaks in service with Historical DuPont.

This Final Judgment starts the clock ticking on the appeals process, which could delay benefits depending on how the District Court and the Third Circuit rule on defendants’ anticipated motions to stay enforcement of the judgment pending resolution of all appeals. We plan to contest all requests for a stay of execution and we will keep you posted as the appellate process unfolds. While delays are unfortunate, this is a very important step towards a final and favorable resolution of this hard fought case.

Special Master Richard Bazelon has been tasked with conferring with counsel for both parties and working to ensure the “prompt and effective implementation” of the Court’s Order

On June 4, 2025, the Court issued an order directing defendants to file any motion to stay on or by June 26, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ response is due by 4:00 pm on July 3, 2025.

Clarification of Class Definitions

On May 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ various motions seeking clarification on several issues related to class definitions and remedies for class members. In its Order, the Court clarified that:

• The Optional Retirement Class includes individuals whose Early Retirement benefits became equal to their Optional Retirement benefits during the pendency of the lawsuit.
• Individuals who signed purported waivers or releases when terminating their employment after the spin-off are included in the Optional Retirement Class.
• Individuals who had at least 15 years of service but were not yet age 50 prior to a break in service, and who were rehired after January 1, 2007*, are included in the Early and Optional Retirement Classes. *The Court’s original order incorrectly used the date of January 1, 2017. This was rectified in a later order.
• Early Retirement Class members who wish to commence early retirement because of the final judgment that will be issued in this lawsuit must cease employment with their current employer to commence this benefit.

On June 3, 2025, defendants filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision to include individuals who had had at least 15 years of service but were not yet age 50 prior to a break in service, and who were rehired after January 1, 2007, in the Early and Optional Retirement Classes.

On June 11, 2025, the Court denied defendants’ motion to alter the final judgment, finding that, “the class definitions do not exclude individuals who were rehired after January 1, 2007, because such individuals may nonetheless meet the class requirements of either having 15 years of employment with at least 50 years of age or 15 years of employment who attained the age of 50 after the spin-off, making them eligible Class Members. Further, no language in the Plan excludes individuals with 15 years of service who were rehired after 2007 from eligibility for Early and Optional Retirement Benefits.”  A copy of the Court’s order is here.

Damages Phase

On May 2, 2025, the Court heard testimony from the Court’s technical advisor, Susan Katz Hoffman, and defendants’ expert. Ms. Hoffman’s report was docketed on April 17, 2025. You can read the Hoffman Report here.

Plaintiffs submitted a proposed judgment and order, and brief in support of this to the Court on May 8, 2025, and defendants responded on May 16, 2025. You can read Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment and order here, and Plaintiffs’ brief in support here.

On May 19, 2025, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiffs to address certain issues in their Reply memorandum. Plaintiffs filed their Reply on May 22, 2025, and you can read Plaintiffs’ reply here.

2025 Motions to Dismiss and Decertify

On March 19, 2025, as this litigation entered the final phase related to remedies for Plaintiffs, the defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Decertify the Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) class action as to Count IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) and the Optional Retirement Class as to Counts II (Denial of Benefits) and IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).

On April 21, 2025, the Court denied defendants’ motions in their entirety, stating that “Defendants’ Motions improperly attempt to relitigate liability which has already been decided in favor” of  Plaintiffs. The Court’s decision can be found here.

In dismissing defendants’ motions, the Court found that

The injury to the Early and Optional Retirement Class Members is one of the very specific injuries that ERISA was enacted to prevent—the inability to know where exactly one stands with respect to his pension benefits and Plan resulting from the miscommunication or omission of material information

The Court further concluded that

Optional Retirement Class Members are entitled to retroactive recovery under Count II should they elect such recovery.

Plaintiffs will file a detail proposed final order and judgment on May 8, 2025, with defendants’ responses due on May 15, 2025.

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.

Judgment for Plaintiffs on Counts II, IV, and VI

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. The Court has appointed Richard L. Bazelon, Esq. as Special Master in this case to oversee the damages phase of the trial. The Order appointing Special Master Bazelon can be found here.

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.

Class Certification

On November 17, 2023, the Honorable Michael M. Baylson granted class certification in this litigation. Judge Baylson certified two classes of workers.

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 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.

You can read the Memorandum regarding Class Certification here, and the Order here.

Class notices were sent out in May, 2024. If you believe you are a member of the Early Retirement Class or the Optional Retirement Class and did not receive a notice, please contact us via email at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com. A copy of the Class Notice can be found here.

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.

Plaintiffs’ Allegations

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of DuPont Specialty Products who allege they were denied early retirement benefits and or optional retirement benefits after the 2019 DowDuPont spin-off that created three separate public companies: Corteva, Inc.; Dow, Inc.; and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that the spin-off was a strategy to deprive long-term employees of the benefits they earned through decades of service to their employer, in violation of ERISA’s protective purposes. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint can be found here.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Edward Stone, Esq. and Lisa A. Salmons, Esq. of Edward Stone Law P.C., are working with Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq., Susan L. Meter, Esq., Jaclyn Conover, Esq. and Samantha Brener of Kantor & Kantor, LLP and Daniel M. Feinberg, Esq., Todd Jackson, Esq., and Nina Wasow, Esq. of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow, LLP on this class action lawsuit.

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.