This case involves three related cases: 1:99-cv-05197; 1:98-cv-03427; and 1:97-cv-06723.
On September 7, 1997, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of female employees, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District Court of New York, under Title VII of the Civil ...
read more >
This case involves three related cases: 1:99-cv-05197; 1:98-cv-03427; and 1:97-cv-06723.
On September 7, 1997, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of female employees, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District Court of New York, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, against predecessor companies of Verizon. The EEOC sought injunctive relief and monetary damages, alleging that the defendants failed to provide Service Credits for periods of pregnancy-related or maternity-related leaves taken prior to April 29, 1979, which resulted in denied pension benefits to non-management female employees under an early retirement incentive program, which became effective on April 3, 1994. On January 28, 1998, the District Court (Judge Denny Chin), granted the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW") and Communications Workers of America ("CWA")'s motions to intervene.
On May 14, 1998, the IBEW, on behalf of female employees, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District Court of New York, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against the same defendants as above. IBEW sought injunctive relief and monetary damages, alleging that the defendants failed to provide female employees Service Credits for periods of approved leaves of absence for Care of Newborn Children taken prior to January 1, 1984, while granting Service Credit to male employees who took similar kinds of leave, resulting in the eventual denial of the same pension benefits listed above to non-management female employees.
The present case started on July 16, 1999, when the EEOC, on behalf of female employees, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District Court of New York, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act, against the same defendants as above. The EEOC sought injunctive relief and monetary damages, claiming that the defendants' method for calculating eligibility for and benefits of a Cash Balance Plan did not include the full Service Credit for female management employees who took Pregnancy-related or Maternity-Related leaves, and yet did include the full Service Credit to other employees who took similar kinds of leave.
On May 20, 1998, case 1:98-cv-03427 was related to case 1:97-cv-06723. Then, on October 22, 1999, case 1:99-cv-05197 (this case) was related to 1:97-cv-06723.
After going through the discovery process and several settlement conferences, the parties reached a settlement on February 28, 2002. After a fairness hearing was held, the District Court (Judge Denny Chin) approved the consent decree on October 9, 2002. Among other things, the defendants agreed to give the members of the class additional service credit which would, in turn, give them increased monthly pension payments and also make them eligible for the early retirement program. Those who have already retired and have been receiving pension payments will receive the difference between the current amount and the amount they should've been paid. The total cost to the defendants was estimated to be in the millions. The defendants also agreed to pay the plaintiff-intervenors' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Perry Miska - 04/13/2014
compress summary