Hot News
Hot News
Romero vs Allstate
July 29, 2010
Judge Ronald Buckwalter Grants Plaintiff Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint:
Read the Memorandum here
April 5, 2010
From the Allstate Agents Litigation Website
As directed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the matters pending before Judge Fullam since 2001 were reassigned to the Honorable Ronald Buckwalter in January 2010. This includes the following cases:
Romero I, No 01-CV-3894, which challenges certain aspects of the Preparing for the Future Group Reorganization Program (Program) announced in November 1999, including (a) the validity of the General Release and Waiver Agreement (Release), (b) the termination of the R830 and R1500 contracts under which employee agents were hired and worked, and (c) Allstate's interference with pension and other employee benefits;
Romero II, No. 01-CV-6764, which challenges certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and alleged misrepresentations relating to eligibility for early retirement and other pension benefits; and
EEOC v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 01-CV-7042, which challenges the validity of the Release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Judge Buckwalter is an experienced jurist who has sat on the District Court for two decades.
At the Court's request, the attorneys for the respective parties met for a status conference on February 14, 2010, at which time Judge Buckwalter made clear that he would follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals and limit "merits" discovery to issues relating to the validity of the Release executed by nearly all of the 6,200 employee agents whose employment contracts were terminated as part of the Program. The parties subsequently were able to negotiate a proposed form of case management protocol under which certain issues relating to the validity and applicability of the Release can be decided by the Court. This will be presented to Judge Buckwalter so that it can be entered as an order of the Court. Plaintiffs already have provided Allstate with a copy of the discovery requests that will be served upon entry of the order.
We are pleased Judge Buckwalter has indicated a willingness to meet with the parties as frequently as necessary to ensure that progress can be made in these long-delayed cases.
July 29, 2009
From the Allstate Agents Litigation Website
On July 29, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a per curium (unanimous) opinion in which it vacated Judge Fullam's ruling of June 20, 2007, by which he had dismissed all of the claims that had been asserted in the Romero and EEOC cases, and directed that, upon remand to the trial court, the case be reassigned. While the Third Circuit's opinion did not resolve many legal issues that were before it on appeal, including the merits of the ADEA, ERISA, and breach of contract claims the Romero plaintiffs have brought against former Allstate CEO Edward Liddy, The Allstate Corporation, and Allstate Insurance Company or the retaliation claims the EEOC has brought against Allstate Insurance Company, it found that the Romero plaintiffs are, at minimum, entitled to discovery concerning the validity of the General Release and Waiver Agreement that all but a handful of the 6,200 terminated employee agents were required to execute. The Third Circuit noted in this regard that if the newly-assigned district court judge determines that the Release is not valid, the trial court will need to address all of the claims that have been raised by the Romero plaintiffs, including the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims, as well as the "cutback" and misrepresentation claims asserted in Romero II.
The Court of Appeals additionally remanded the age discrimination and ERISA benefit claims asserted in Romero I so that the district court can determine whether plaintiffs were provided with sufficient discovery relating to those claims.
Finally, with respect to the Romero II claims, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Romero plaintiffs that the Scott and Swain decisions are not dispositive and those claims can move forward in the district court..
The Romero plaintiffs are pleased that the Third Circuit has vacated the case for further proceedings and look forward to arguing the merits of each of their claims to a new trial judge after being afforded the discovery to which they are entitled.
Appeal Court Opinion
March 23, 2009
From the Allstate Agents Litigation Website
The parties appeared today before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia to argue issues relating to Judge Fullam's ruling that dismissed the Romero I, Romero II, and EEOC lawsuits in June 2007. See link http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33427&ba=1 The Romero plaintiffs appreciate that they were afforded the opportunity to appear before the Court, and are encouraged that each of the three judges sitting on the panel had devoted substantial time familiarizing themselves with the facts of the case. No ruling is expected for at least several months. . In the meantime. however, a transcript of the argument can be found here.
August 20, 2008
From the Allstate Agents Litigation Website
On August 12, Allstate filed their Briefs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Three documents are available on the Agents Litigation websites:
Brief of Defendants Appellee (Pension Case)
Brief of Appellee Allstate (EEOC vs Allstate)
Brief of Appellee Allstate, Allstate Corporation, Edward M. Liddy (Romero)
June 2, 2008
Today, the Romero plaintiffs and EEOC each filed briefs in connection with the appeals taken from Judge Fullam’s decision of June 20, 2007, which granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate. Copies of the briefs can be downloaded here:
Brief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Appellant
E-Brief
Allstate will file its opposition within 30 days.
May 6, 2008
On June 20, 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order reversing its earlier ruling of March 30, 2004, in which it had concluded the Release and Waiver Agreement that Allstate required employee agents to sign as part of the "Preparing for the Future" Group Reorganization Program was retaliatory and in violation of applicable federal law and could be voided at the option of each employee agent who signed the Release. In addition to vacating its ruling concerning the validity of the Release, the District Court adopted the "tentative conclusions" set forth in its order dated March 21, 2007 (which is discussed below) and, as a result, granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate as to the discrimination and retaliation claims asserted by the plaintiff employee agents under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Finally, the District Court indicated its intention to close the case files.
Plaintiffs, together with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have taken an appeal from the District Court's ruling and, in accordance with the scheduling order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will be filing briefs with the Court of Appeals by June 2, 2008. Allstate will have to file responsive briefs within 30 days. Copies of the parties' briefs will be posted after they are filed.
May 24, 2007
From the Allstate Agents Litigation Website
Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to bring to Judge Fullam's attention a controlling decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 14, 2007. Plaintiffs believe that this decision, known as Jakimas v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., demonstrates not only that the Court was wrong in imposing a "tender back" requirement with respect to the Release in its ruling of March 30, 2004, but also that the Court should not rule as a matter of law that execution of the Release was knowing and voluntary, that the Release was not part and parcel of an illegal scheme, or that the Release was not unconscionable and in violation of public policy. Plaintiffs argue further that Jakimas instructs that the Court should not dismiss the claims arising under Section 510 of ERISA without first affording plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct merits discovery. Because Judge Fullam limited additional briefing relating to the tentative conclusions issued on March 21, 2007, to 10 pages, plaintiffs have filed a motion asking the Court to accept for filing a supplemental memorandum
April 2, 2007
Excerpt From the Allstate Agents Litigation Website
"Judge Fullam has denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and, in a ruling dated March 21, 2007, advised the parties that he has reached a number of tentative conclusions in this case, the EEOC case and Romero II. As set forth in the memorandum opinion issued by the Court, Judge Fullam stated that he had concluded that his March 2004 ruling was "in error" insofar as he found that the Release was voidable and, in light of other tentative conclusions set forth in his ruling, that "the validity of the release has become moot." With respect to the other tentative conclusions, Judge Fullam stated that a 2005 decision issued by a United States Court of Appeals in Isbell v. Allstate Ins. Co. "warrants the conclusion that plaintiffs' claims of ERISA violations, age discrimination and retaliation must fail." It therefore appears that it is Judge Fullam's intention to uphold the Release and, in addition, dismiss the federal law claims brought under the ADEA and ERISA. Judge Fullam nevertheless has invited the parties to submit additional briefs that bring to the Court's attention any issues that he may have overlooked, as well as any argument or "other factor" that impugns the decision in Isbell. Plaintiffs believe that the tentative conclusions reached by Judge Fullam are not correct and will file a brief that attempts to explain why he is in error. We will keep you advised of any further rulings from the Court."
Both the Plaintiff and Defendant filed a response to Judge Fullam's Memorandum on April 10, 2007. The Responses are posted on the Allstatecase.com website:
Plaintiff Consolidated Memorandum
March 21, 2007
Judge Fullam issued a memorandum and Order this date, with tentative conclusions on all three of the consolidated cases commonly known as Romero vs Allstate
Read the Memorandum here.
Romero I & II Summary
The proposed class action lawsuit brought by 29 plaintiffs, known as Romero I, seeks to recover pension, medical and other benefits estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and other relief, on behalf of about 6,200 current and former Allstate agents. The plaintiffs have alleged that the company betrayed its long-time "captive" employee agents by wrongfully terminating their employment contracts in order to deny them pension and other employee benefits and to rid itself of thousands of older employees.
The proposed class action lawsuit known as "Romero II" was filed by 32 individuals who had been employed by Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") under R830 and R1500 contracts and who remain participants in and/or beneficiaries of the Agents Pension Plan. The plaintiffs allege that the Allstate defendants sought to amend the Agents Pension Plan during the 1990's for the purpose of unlawfully "cutting back" retirement benefits. The lawsuit also alleges that Allstate knowingly misrepresented that agents who continued in the service of the company as so-called "independent contractors" could not accrue additional retirement benefits or become entitled to early retirement.