Articles Tagged with pension

Renaker Hasselman Scott and Kantor & Kantor. LLP represent a former employee of Helena du Pont Wright in litigation concerning a pension trust established in 1947 by Mary Chichester du Pont Clark. The trust provides pensions to employees of Mary Chichester du Pont Clark’s children and grandchildren, including A. Felix du Pont, Allaire Crozier du Pont, Alice du Pont Mills, Mary Mills Abel Smith, Katharine Gahagan, James Mills, Phyllis Wyeth, Christopher T. du Pont, and Michael du Pont. Positions that may be covered include household employees, secretaries, personal assistants, chauffeurs, stable hands, and grooms, among others.

The litigation seeks to ensure that the pension trust is operated in accordance with the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the federal law that establishes standards for pension plans sponsored by private employers. In June 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the pension trust is governed by ERISA.

Generally, ERISA requires that a pension plan provide pensions to employees who work in employment covered by the pension plan for at least five years. ERISA also generally requires that a pension plan provide benefits to the surviving spouses of such employees.

An amended complaint filed March 29 in Bafford, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al., alleges that Northrop Grumman and its outside administrator, Hewitt Associates LLC (now known as Alight Solutions LLC), violated federal and state law by persistently overstating the pension benefits earned by certain Northrop Grumman employees.

Plaintiffs Stephen Bafford and Evelyn Wilson each worked for Northrop Grumman in the 1980’s and 1990’s, then worked for TRW Corporation, and then returned to Northrop Grumman employment when Northrop Grumman acquired TRW in 2002. For years before each Plaintiff retired from Northrop Grumman, the Defendants provided them with pension benefit statements that showed their pensions being calculated on the basis of their highest three years of pay from their second period of Northrop Grumman employment.

But in early 2017, Defendants notified each Plaintiff that their pensions would be reduced by more than 50 percent because the pensions should have been calculated based on earnings from each Plaintiff’s first period of Northrop Grumman employment. Defendants further demanded repayment of pension amounts already paid to Plaintiffs, including more than $35,000 demanded from Ms. Wilson.

Contact Information