4 ms·

> federal judge agreed that McDonnell-Douglas had illegally considered the pensions in its decision to close the plant. The employees case, presented by attorn

> federal judge agreed that McDonnell-Douglas had illegally considered the pensions in its decision to close the plant. The employees case, presented by attorneys Joe Farris and Mike Mulder, showed that the company had tracked pension savings in its plant closure decisions WTF! So a company is not allowed to consider costs in a cost cutting decision? Was this not a conscious risk an employee took by accepting a job on the chance of pension received if they were not fired before retirement? How is it different from buying a ton of stocks of failing companies and then suing if the price crashes further?

newfoundglory 9y ago
It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary - the company has to pay you for your work, even if they would rather not.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary Not really. The case doesn’t seem to involve the company trying to default on existing obligations. It involves them projecting future costs and deciding whether to carry them. This is akin to laying off an employee, something most states freely permit, more than defaulting on pay for work already done.
  - defined 9y ago
    I just see it as making promises (pensions) the company was not committed to keep. I'm sure the judge didn't use the word "mendacity " lightly or unadvisedly.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      The case [1] is an interesting skim. Section 510 of ERISA says “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to discharge ... or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for ... the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan (or ERISA)” (¶ 219). Closing a plant to save money isn’t per se illegal (¶ 222). The employer just had to show they had a legitimate reason for closing the plant (¶ 223). Instead, they kept talking about how the pension plan had nothing to do with the plant’s closure (¶ 226). That was not credible (¶ 263). (The plant’s employees had helped lobby for a new F-15 contract (¶ 15). There may have been political reasons the company couldn’t say “pension costs factored into our decision, though other reasons were prominent, too”.) Since the “Defendant was in the best position to put forth the actual reasons for its decision, if in fact such reasons were legitimate” and it “repeatedly failed to do so, engaging in a pattern of discovery abuse and refusal to respond to proper inquiries by both Plaintiffs and the Court“ (¶ 257) the plaintiffs won (§ 4). It is unclear how cleanly this unusual case generalises to the claim made in the original article. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/162/1262/2319718/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/... Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

newfoundglory 9y ago

It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary - the company has to pay you for your work, even if they would rather not.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary Not really. The case doesn’t seem to involve the company trying to default on existing obligations. It involves them projecting future costs and deciding whether to carry them. This is akin to laying off an employee, something most states freely permit, more than defaulting on pay for work already done.
- defined 9y ago
  I just see it as making promises (pensions) the company was not committed to keep. I'm sure the judge didn't use the word "mendacity " lightly or unadvisedly.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    The case [1] is an interesting skim. Section 510 of ERISA says “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to discharge ... or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for ... the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan (or ERISA)” (¶ 219). Closing a plant to save money isn’t per se illegal (¶ 222). The employer just had to show they had a legitimate reason for closing the plant (¶ 223). Instead, they kept talking about how the pension plan had nothing to do with the plant’s closure (¶ 226). That was not credible (¶ 263). (The plant’s employees had helped lobby for a new F-15 contract (¶ 15). There may have been political reasons the company couldn’t say “pension costs factored into our decision, though other reasons were prominent, too”.) Since the “Defendant was in the best position to put forth the actual reasons for its decision, if in fact such reasons were legitimate” and it “repeatedly failed to do so, engaging in a pattern of discovery abuse and refusal to respond to proper inquiries by both Plaintiffs and the Court“ (¶ 257) the plaintiffs won (§ 4). It is unclear how cleanly this unusual case generalises to the claim made in the original article. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/162/1262/2319718/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/... Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.