• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Plant closing and "locked out" of retirement benefits & insurance package....

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

P

PH

Guest
My husband was told back in Aug. or Sept. 1998 that the plant he has worked at for 31 years would be closing. The projected date given was sometime in 1999 or early 2000. He was told that only those with enough years of service and being age 50 by Oct. 1998 would be "bridged" into an early retirement deal and receive full retirement benefits...my husband did not reach age 50 until May of 1999. Since this announcement was made, the closing date of the plant has been moved further back at least 4 times and they are now saying a closing date may be as late as 2001 or 2002. Yet, no changes have been made in the "age bridge" initially stated back in 1998. As things stand....he will lose 60% of his earned retirement plus all medical insurance benefits. He has asked several times about this being changed, he has gone through the proper channels and has even talked to the corporate personnel manager in charge of this plant but, as of yet....has not received any answers except that "it's not a done deal yet", "don't give up hope"......all the usual cliches! My question is if he pushes this as far as bringing legal action against the company, what chances might he have of winning and being able to walk out with full pension and benefits when the time comes? It sticks in our throat that there are some there who have only 10 or 15 years in, but because they were age 50 by Oct. 1998 they are leaving with full everything! Do we have any legal grounds to stand on to try and fight this?
 


A

Attorney_Replogle

Guest
Presuming that the company is a non-unionized company, I would say you have no legal recourse. Reductions in force based on legitimate company economic needs or desires is a legitimate way to run a business in California. From what you have written, I do not see any signs of illegal discrimination. For more information, you may want to read this site's BBS on employment (labor) law.

------------------
Mark B. Replogle
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top