1. Barnes v. AT&T Pension Plan

The first case, Barnes v. AT&T Pension Plan, is a certified class action challenging the manner by which the AT&T Pension Plan (the successor to the Pacific Bell Pension Plan) calculated the pension benefits for employees who received a discounted Accelerated Transition Benefit (“ATB”) at their first termination and then bridged their service by returning to work for the company before October 31, 1997. The Class consists of both participants who elected to take a lump sum payment at first termination (“Lump Sum Class Members”) and those participants eligible to receive an annuity after first termination (“Annuitant Class Members”); however, during the course of the litigation, the Plan agreed that the Annuitant Class Members did not have their benefits properly calculated under the Plan. As a result, the Plan has agreed to pay the Annuitant Class Members as Plaintiff alleged that they should have been paid. The District Court determined that AT&T’s refusal to pay Lump Sum Class Members was a reasonable interpretation of the Plan and allowed AT&T to continue to refused to pay additional benefits.

Annuitant Class Members: If you are a member of the Class (and either are or will receive annuity) and AT&T has not contacted you about additional benefits you may be owed, you should contact AT&T and/or Class Counsel (Cohen Milstein)

Lump Sum Class Members: Plaintiff has filed an appeal and intends to pursue this appeal on behalf of the Class.

More information about this lawsuit is available at http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/225/pacific-telesis-group-salaried-pension-plan-atb-benefit-miscalculation-litigation

2. Dwyer v. AT&T Pension Plan

The second case, Dwyer v. AT&T Pension Plan, was filed after Barnes challenging the manner by which the AT&T Pension Plan (the successor to the Pacific Bell Pension Plan) calculated the pension benefits for employees who received a discounted Accelerated Transition Benefit (“ATB”) at their first termination and then bridged their service by returning to work for the company after October 31, 1997. The difference is that AT&T adopted an amendment to the Plan effective November 1, 1997 which Plaintiff challenges as an illegal amendment under ERISA. This Class, which is not yet certified, would consist of both participants who elected to take a lump sum payment at first termination (“Lump Sum Class Members”) and those participants eligible to receive an annuity after first termination (“Annuitant Class Members”). After filing, the Court ordered Plaintiff Dwyer to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Plan, which is now complete.

If you were a participant in the AT&T Pension Plan, terminated employment between March 1996 and October 31, 1997, returned to work with PacBell/AT&T after October 31, 1997 and bridged your service, you may want to contact Plaintiff’s Counsel (Cohen Milstein) about whether you may have a claim for additional benefits.

More information about this lawsuit is available at http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/252/pacific-telesis-group-salaried-pension-plan-anti-cutback-litigation