Fedex Denies Pension Benefits To Gay Spouse
- Thread starter NonyaBiznes
- Start date
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
TL
R judge believes they were spouses, FedEx likely to have to pay up.
R judge believes they were spouses, FedEx likely to have to pay up.Typical X, willing to spend millions in legal costs just for the opportunity to fight over a few dollars in pension benefits. Another clear testament to it's ruthlessness and propensity for treating people badly. But remember this company was voted the fifth best company in America to work for.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
It should be decided by the court system because the circumstances are crazy.
Under the law in place at the time of the ceremony and Taboada-hall death, FedEx wasn't obligated to pay survivor's benefits. Schuett eventually obtained a retroactive recognition of their marriage and sought benefits as a result. At issue is the fact that FDX was compliant with the law at the time of the marriage and subsequent death, which they were, and being solicited by the plaintiff to pay benefits based on a retroactive recognition of marriage that followed a SCOTUS decision.
It would be nice to have the story presented in a way that's a little less biased than ThinkProgress, but oh well.
Under the law in place at the time of the ceremony and Taboada-hall death, FedEx wasn't obligated to pay survivor's benefits. Schuett eventually obtained a retroactive recognition of their marriage and sought benefits as a result. At issue is the fact that FDX was compliant with the law at the time of the marriage and subsequent death, which they were, and being solicited by the plaintiff to pay benefits based on a retroactive recognition of marriage that followed a SCOTUS decision.
It would be nice to have the story presented in a way that's a little less biased than ThinkProgress, but oh well.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
I think Fred will be cutting a big check. The PR value of this kind of behavior is priceless.
Maui
Well-Known Member
Please see page 2 of this previous thread. ThinkProgress does not even tell enough of the story. It's a pretty factual account. I find it telling that Stacey is not seeking anything other the earned benefits LT had over a 26 year career.
http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/pretty-low-but-not-surprised.360125/page-2
Indecisi0n
Well-Known Member
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
She is stealing Mr. Smith's money.
Maui
Well-Known Member
Yes. It's pretty basic here. LT worked for Express for 26 years and earned pension benefits under the old traditional plan and the PPP. She was told, as she was fighting for her life, not to take retirement with a joint annuity by a FedEx manager (HCMP). If she had not followed that advice, then even with the old, discriminatory laws her family would have been paid what she earned.
Stacey is not seeking millions or punitive costs just what her wife earned. LT died 6 days before this would become a moot point.
FedEx owed the money to LT and her family. If she had retired before dying or not followed the advice of FedEx, then her children would already be receiving the pension she earned. The right thing to do is pay the annuity to her partner.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Doing the right thing is not within the FedEx lexicon. FedEx Legal will spend a million fighting her, and then lose...as they should.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
FedEx was complying with the law on the date of her death. It was, as they weren't legally married. The problem is that a marriage was made legal retroactively, and she is asking that the benefits be awarded retroactively. This is more about setting a general precedent for being on the hook for retroactive applications of court decisions. The courts will sort it out one way or another if they don't come to an agreement of some sort.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
She opted to NOT take the joint plan that would pay benefits to a spouse or other designated beneficiary?? Am I reading that right? Let me know if that's the case.
If so, they're very possibly screwed. Survivors are going to have a very hard time claiming benefits when she elected NOT to give them any.
Last edited:
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
We had a driver pass away several years ago who had not chosen the surviving spouse pension. There was nothing the union could do for his widow.
You would think that a decision this important would have to be signed off on by both the employee and their spouse. A married man under the age of 35 cannot get a vasectomy unless his wife signs off on it. The same should apply here.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Gee, Dano. Why oh why would HCMP misdirect this person?
Maui
Well-Known Member
No. That is an incorrect reading.
Please see the posts from the original thread last year. It includes the filed complaint. It also shows that I knew her personally.
She elected not to RETIRE based on the recommendation and information from FedEx. She had been sick for years and continued to work while getting treatment as long as she could. By her wife's account FedEx was good to her in 2010 when it first started and in 2012-2013 when her cancer returned and ultimately took her life. She would get chemo on Friday and come back to work on Monday or Tuesday. She was very concerned for the welfare of her family and attempted to schedule chemo so that she missed the least amount of work possible. Her wife was a stay-at-home mother and small time artist. Basically, LT was the sole bread-winner and she knew her wife and children counted on her income. She had a rural route near the west coast of Sonoma county that was not very physically demanding that made this easier.
I left the location before LT became too ill to continue working so what follows is information from the complaint. Everything else I know to be true, so I am accepting this information at face value.
Once she could no longer work and was placed on leave she came under the management of the district HCMP. She could have retired and she asked to start hat process so her family could collect her fully vested traditional pension and PPP. She was advised that retiree medical costs would be very expensive for her treatments and that she should wait. To be fair I knew the HCMP and I do think this was given with good intentions, but it turned out to be a mistake because FedEx did not provide any protection for spousal survivor benefits until it was forced to do so in Windsor. On this point you are correct. Had she just retired and then died the cost of medical would not have mattered. Like I said before, she died 6 days too soon. Her family just wants what they would have received.
This makes me sick. For shame.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Grow up
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
maroon.
