Our Practice

Cash Balance Pension Plan Litigation


Sidley is a leader in the specialized issues involving cash balance plans. Cases we handled in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have created new precedent on the construction of “normal retirement age” under ERISA, age discrimination rules, and ERISA § 204(h) claims.

Representative matters include:
  • Engers v. AT&T, No. 10-2752, 2011 WL 2507089 (3d Cir. June 22, 2011). The Third Circuit affirmed the award of summary judgment to our clients on all counts in a class action and collective action arising out of a cash balance conversion, in which plan participants alleged age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and various violations of ERISA’s benefit accrual and disclosure requirements.
  • Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, 571 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2009). Sidley won significant victories in an ERISA case for Exelon Corporation in the Northern District of Illinois and the Seventh Circuit. Exelon was the defendant in a closely watched case involving the concept of “normal retirement age.” This case was the second to address this issue. In the first, the defendants lost. Sidley successfully argued that the courts in the Exelon case should not follow that precedent and should find in favor of Exelon.
  • Walker v. Monsanto Co., 614 F.3d 415 (7th Cir 2010). Sidley successfully defended a Pfizer cash balance plan against claims that an early retirement feature of the plan resulted in age discrimination against older workers.
  • Hurlic v. Southern California Gas Co., 539 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008). Sidley won a high-profile challenge to a cash balance plan adopted by the Southern California Gas Company, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy. The appeal was closely watched because the plan at issue has features that are common to hundreds of cash balance plans across the country.
  • Peterson v. AT&T Corp., 127 Fed. Appx. 67 (3d Cir. 2005).The Third Circuit ruled in favor of our client AT&T in an ERISA class action in which plaintiffs, former employees of AT&T, claimed that the company breached its fiduciary duties by failing to inform them before they retired that AT&T might make changes to its retirement package.


Sidley Updates