April 2, 2007
On March 30, 2004, Senior District Judge John Fullam granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in Romero I, holding that the release violated the ADEA because it barred the filing of "charges," including challenges to the validity of the release. As Judge Fullam observed, "we have no way of knowing how many other employee-agents failed to pursue charges before the EEOC simply because they accepted the release language at face value." The Court held further that Allstate had engaged in unlawful retaliation under the ADEA, Title VII and other laws in order to prevent agents from exercising their federally-protected rights. As part of its ruling, however, the Court concluded, based on the limited record before it, that there was "no basis" for plaintiffs' age discrimination claims. Although the Court did not actually dismiss the ADEA claims, it held that agents who desire to have the release invalidated and pursue claims for damages or other relief would first have to repay or "tender back" to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the signer in exchange for the release."
Plaintiffs filed a motion in April 2004 asking the Court to reconsider the "tender back" requirement. The EEOC also filed its own motion asking that the Court clarify its ruling.
In December 2005, Allstate
filed a summary judgment motion asking the Court not only to reconsider its
March 2004 decision and reverse itself by upholding the release. Allstate
also is asking the Court to dismiss the claims the Romero plaintiffs are prosecuting
under the ADEA and ERISA, including the claim that the release constitutes
unlawful retaliation. CEO Liddy has joined in the request for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs and the EEOC have opposed the motion on numerous grounds. In a
48-page brief filed with the Court under seal, plaintiffs lay out the reasons
that Allstate is not entitled to seek reconsideration of the March 2004 ruling
at this late date and, in any event, is not entitled to dismissal of the ADEA
and ERISA claims or, indeed, any of their claims as a matter of law. In further
support of their arguments, plaintiffs note, among other things, that they
have not been able to undertake "merits" discovery because of Allstate's
unjustified refusal to produce documents responsive to their discovery requests.
Plaintiffs therefore have requested that the Court deny the motions for summary
judgment and that it instead grant the relief requested with respect to the
"tender back" requirement in the motions that have been pending
since April 2004.
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.
©2002-2008 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sprenger & Lang PLLC and AARP Foundation Litigation