{"id":2906,"date":"2024-10-06T04:41:59","date_gmt":"2024-10-06T04:41:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/federal-judge-preliminary-approves-10m-settlement-against-citgos-marriage-penalty-in-pensions-benefits\/"},"modified":"2024-10-06T04:41:59","modified_gmt":"2024-10-06T04:41:59","slug":"federal-judge-preliminary-approves-10m-settlement-against-citgos-marriage-penalty-in-pensions-benefits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/federal-judge-preliminary-approves-10m-settlement-against-citgos-marriage-penalty-in-pensions-benefits\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Judge Preliminary Approves $10M Settlement Against Citgo’s ‘Marriage Penalty’ in Pensions Benefits"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

A federal judge in Chicago granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement Friday\u00a0to provide $10 million in increased pension benefits to more than 1,700 participants and beneficiaries in two of Citgo Petroleum Corp.’s pension plans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

U.S. District Judge\u00a0Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval Friday<\/a>\u00a0after counsel with Cohen Milstein filed the class action\u00a0settlement agreement<\/a> Wednesday on behalf of the three former Citgo employees,\u00a0Leslie Urlaub, Mark Pellegrini and Mark Ferry.\u00a0The lawsuit,\u00a0<\/span>Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.<\/em>, alleged that the Houston-based gas and energy company failed to properly calculate joint and survivor annuity benefits for married retirees and imposed a “marriage penalty” that reduced the joint pensions below the value of pensions paid to single retirees, in violation of\u00a0the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The plaintiffs claimed Citgo’s pension plans utilized mortality tables from the 1970s\u00a0to determine the value of the joint pensions, resulting in married retirees systematically receiving less than their single counterparts. The plaintiffs sought to fix the underpayments, and to reform the Citgo plans to fully comply with ERISA standards.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

“We are delighted by the settlement, which provides a significant victory for married retirees who are entitled to receive the full value of their hard-earned pensions,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits\/ERISA practice. “As our claims have asserted, federal law does not allow corporations to shortchange married retirees and their spouses. Today’s proposed settlement is a major victory in this legal battle.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The district court will hold a fairness hearing Jan. 27 to review comments or objections to the settlement or to class counsel’s attorney fees, among other things, according to the court’s order Friday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

After Kennelly certified the class of members and beneficiaries in May, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently\u00a0denied Citgo’s motion<\/a> to appeal the former employees’ class certification.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The district court also rejected the company’s summary judgment motion, disagreeing Citgo’s\u00a0argument that the entire suit should be dismissed based on the statute of limitations. Instead, it found\u00a0that all three plaintiffs could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim. Citgo’s claim\u00a0that the plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court also did not persuade the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The plaintiffs filed the complaint in August 2021. Yau told\u00a0Law.com in May that Citgo recognized it was underpaying its retirees in 2018 when it amended its pension plans to use updated mortality assumptions. The company, however, only fixed the issues for its former employees who retired after 2018, which left behind all retirees who had previously started their pension.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

This case is one of six such “marriage penalty” ERSIA class actions Cohen Milstein has recently filed against some of the largest corporations in the U.S., including AT&T, IBM, Intel, Luxottica and Southern Co.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Joining Yau in representing the plaintiffs were: Nina Wasow and Todd F. Jackson Feinberg of Jackson Worthman and Waso in Berkeley, California;\u00a0John R. Stokes,\u00a0Peter K. Stris,\u00a0Rachana A. Pathak and\u00a0Victor A. O’Connell of Stris & Maher; and\u00a0Shaun P. Martin of the University of San Diego Law School.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CITGO was represented by Edward Rossman, Michael J. Gray, Bethany Biesenthal, Carly Roessler, Courtney L. Burks, Evan Miller, Kevin R. Noble, Kristin Berger Parker, Kristin Simonet and Ryan S. Shymansky of Jones Day. Counsel did not return a request for comment.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A federal judge in Chicago granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement Friday\u00a0to provide $10 million in increased pension benefits to more than 1,700 participants and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2907,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[2756,1788,3737,3733,554,423,3734,3735,3736,2352,399],"class_list":["post-2906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-10m","tag-approves","tag-benefits","tag-citgos","tag-federal","tag-judge","tag-marriage","tag-penalty","tag-pensions","tag-preliminary","tag-settlement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2906","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2906\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2907"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}