Retirees from Lucent sue the company over
health benefits
 |
|
Newsday -
Associated Press - October 24, 2005
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
October 24, 2005, 5:35 PM EDT
Associated Press Writer
October 24, 2005, 5:35 PM EDT
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. -- Two Lucent Technologies retirees filed a lawsuit
against their former employer on Monday, claiming the company failed to
maintain health care benefits for retirees as required by law.
The plaintiffs in the case are members of the "Lucent Retirees Organization," which is seeking to have the case certified as a class action lawsuit on behalf of 235,000 Lucent retirees and dependents. The claim was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden on Monday, the retirees' group said.
,TID,37u0ukn11hd328&random=bcuouui,bbvIdNbcnKwhI)
Many of the Lucent retirees worked for, and retired from, corporate
predecessors of Lucent, which was spun off from AT&T in 1996.
The plaintiffs claim that in 1998, Lucent was required to maintain all retire benefits at their previous levels through September 2003.
But they say Lucent did not keep that promise when the company raised co-payments, deductibles and retiree contributions for coverage between Jan. 1, 2001 and Jan. 1, 2003.
Employees who retired before March 1, 1990 from any of the companies that eventually became part of Lucent are not affected and could not join the lawsuit if it is granted class-action status, said Ken Raschke, president of the Lucent Retirees Organization.
For more recent retirees, though _ like many American workers _ health care premiums have been rising fast.
Ed Beltram, a spokesman for "Lucent Retirees Organization," retired as human resources manager at the company's Oklahoma City plant in 2001. Beltram said he paid $42 per month that year for health care for himself and his wife; two years later, he was paying $142 per month.
Alan M. Sandals, a lawyer for the retirees, said that because the company did wrong before Sept. 30, it was also violating tax laws for other, bigger changes that came after that date.
Those changes include moves Lucent made since 2004, to stop subsidizing health care for dependents of workers who retired with salaries of more than $65,000. For example, Beltram said that in 2006, he'll have to pay $690 per month for medical insurance for himself and his wife, whose coverage is no longer subsidized.
Lucent spokeswoman Mary Ward said the company does not generally comment on litigation, but said Lucent believes it is in compliance with the federal tax law provisions in question in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs in the case are members of the "Lucent Retirees Organization," which is seeking to have the case certified as a class action lawsuit on behalf of 235,000 Lucent retirees and dependents. The claim was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden on Monday, the retirees' group said.
The plaintiffs claim that in 1998, Lucent was required to maintain all retire benefits at their previous levels through September 2003.
But they say Lucent did not keep that promise when the company raised co-payments, deductibles and retiree contributions for coverage between Jan. 1, 2001 and Jan. 1, 2003.
Employees who retired before March 1, 1990 from any of the companies that eventually became part of Lucent are not affected and could not join the lawsuit if it is granted class-action status, said Ken Raschke, president of the Lucent Retirees Organization.
For more recent retirees, though _ like many American workers _ health care premiums have been rising fast.
Ed Beltram, a spokesman for "Lucent Retirees Organization," retired as human resources manager at the company's Oklahoma City plant in 2001. Beltram said he paid $42 per month that year for health care for himself and his wife; two years later, he was paying $142 per month.
Alan M. Sandals, a lawyer for the retirees, said that because the company did wrong before Sept. 30, it was also violating tax laws for other, bigger changes that came after that date.
Those changes include moves Lucent made since 2004, to stop subsidizing health care for dependents of workers who retired with salaries of more than $65,000. For example, Beltram said that in 2006, he'll have to pay $690 per month for medical insurance for himself and his wife, whose coverage is no longer subsidized.
Lucent spokeswoman Mary Ward said the company does not generally comment on litigation, but said Lucent believes it is in compliance with the federal tax law provisions in question in the lawsuit.