This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Compensations, Benefits
Salaried Plan/Denial of Pension Benefits

David A. Vazquez, Jose R. Armas, Samuel Moreno v. Cargill Incorporated and Associated Companies Salaried Employees' Pension Plan, Cargill Incorporated and Associated Companies Pension Plan for Production Employees

Published: Oct. 20, 2007 | Result Date: Sep. 11, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SACV 06-0008-CJC(RNBx) Bench Decision –  Plaintiffs entitled to pension benefits for their years of service beginning Jan. 1, 1964.

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michelle A. Reinglass

Michael S. Ahmad


Defendant

Gordon A. Letter

Nancy L. Ober
(Littler Mendelson PC)


Facts

Plaintiffs David A. Vazquez, Jose R. Armas and Samuel Moreno are each retirees who worked for over 35 years at the same oil facility in Fullerton, California. This facility was owned and operated by Hunt-Wesson for many years until Cargill Inc. acquired it in 1990. In March 1999, plaintiffs were converted from production employees to salaried employees, but told by defendant their benefits would either not change or would improve.

Plaintiffs all worked continuously at the facility until their retirement, and all speak English as a second language.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that when Cargill acquired the facility and employed them, Cargill held a meeting in March 1990, promised plaintiffs would receive pension benefits for their years of service at both Hunt-Wesson and Cargill. Plaintiffs relied on defendant's representations. A handbook and Summary Plan Description support plaintiffs' understanding, as well as a 1998 e-mail by the Plant Manager.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied that plaintiffs were entitled to pension benefits for their years at Hunt-Wesson. Defendant relied on a Production Master Plan document that expressly excluded years of service at a predecessor company from the calculation of pension benefits.

Result

Court found in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive pension benefits for their years of service at the facility beginning Jan. 1, 1964. The court held that given the conflict between the Production Master Plan and the Summary Plan Description, the latter controls because it is more favorable to the employee.

Other Information

Judgment was entered in January 2008. Attorneys fees of $415,164.50 and costs of $5,920.11 were awarded in March 2008.


#119922

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390