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.
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.
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
She is stealing Mr. Smith's money.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Survivors are going to have a very hard time claiming benefits when she elected NOT to give them any.
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.
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.
Grow up"Lesbian widow". I don't know whether to laugh or throw up.
"Lesbian widow". I don't know whether to laugh or throw up.