The panel considers, and upholds, each of the three legal theories raised by Deschamps.ġ. The Sixth Circuit affirms on all grounds. The judge granted liability in favor of Deschamps on cross-motions for summary judgment. ”ĭeschamps, after exhausting all internal avenues for correcting the hire date, filed suit in federal district court in Nashville. “(a) An Employee is described in this paragraph if he is: (i) classified by the Employer as a United States salaried Employee not represented by a designated collective bargaining agent or (ii) a foreman, supervisor, plant protection Employee, administrative or clerical Employee or confidential Employee of the Employer, whether or not paid on an hourly basis, who is not represented by a designated collective bargaining agent.
“(10) Covered Employee: An Employee who is described in paragraph (a) of this Subsection.
It did so based on its reading of the plan definition of covered employees: The plant and HR managers offered “‘specific representations’ that his service date would be preserved, and even “contacted Bridgestone’s corporate office to ensure that Deschamps would be given pension credit for his time in Canada.” And “uring his employment at the Wilson plant, Continental Tire (Continental), a competitor, twice offered Deschamps a position at its facility, once in 2000 and again in 2003.” But he declined those offers because “the pension benefits at Bridgestone far exceeded those at Continental.”įinally, all of the company paperwork Deschamps received over the years reflected the 1983 hire date.īut in 2010, the company changed the hire date to when he began working at the Wilson plant, thus taking ten years off of his length of service. “A few weeks later, Deschamps testified, contacted him to assure him that he would be given pension credit back to August 8, 1983.” He asked respectively the plant manager, the human resources manager, the director of manufacturing, and plant controller about what would happen to his start date. 19, 2016): “On August 8, 1983, Deschamps began working for Firestone in Canadas a maintenance manager.” The company offered him an opportunity to work at a plant in the States in 1993 (in Wilson, North Carolina), but he felt uncertain about what would happen to his pension. In this case, the Sixth Circuit affirms an ERISA judgment against a manufacturer and its retirement plan for equitable estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and an anti-cutback violation of ERISA.ĭeschamps v. An employer that deliberately, or with gross negligence, misinforms employees about potential retirement benefits – inducing them to remain with the company – may find itself on the hook to compensate those employees for lost opportunities.
0 kommentar(er)
