On September 7, 2005, plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, § 2 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., (ERISA) against his employer, Dun & Bradstreet Corp., in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that when the defendant switched his pension plan from a defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan on January 1, 1997 it had violated ERISA and engaged in age discrimination because his benefits were reduced compared to those awarded to younger employees because of how interest accrued in the new plan. He also alleged that the defendant had provided false and misleading information about the change. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as monetary damages. He also sought to have a class certified consisting of all other employees similarly situated.

On March 30, 2006, the district court (Judge Plunkett) ordered that the case be transferred to the District of New Jersey. The defendant's principle place of business was in New Jersey and of the 5,000 putative class members only 4% resided in Illinois while most of the rest resided in or near New Jersey. The case continued in New Jersey as Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Subsequent developments can be found in EE-NJ-0126.

Michael Perry - 09/16/2010


compress summary