Pretty Low - But Not Surprised

[STFXG]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-sues-fedex-denying-her-wifes-pension-n285776

FedEx won't pay out benefits to her widow. Shouldn't be surprising to anyone, but it is still wrong.

 

[whenIgetthere]

Agree, wrong but not surprising at all.

 

[l22]

Extremely upsetting and sad to say the least.

 

[hypo hanna]

FedEx has never been very good to the LGBTemployee.

No surprise here.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

While FedEx may not be doing the right thing in this case, it is well within its legal rights to deny pension benefits to her surviving partner.

 

[It will be fine]

While FedEx may not be doing the right thing in this case, it is well within its legal rights to deny pension benefits to her surviving partner.

Isn't that the issue though? They are following a law deemed unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional now it always was and shouldn't be used to deny earned benefits.
The part that doesn't check out is she says she liked working for FedEx for 26 years. That's clearly a lie.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Isn't that the issue though? They are following a law deemed unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional now it always was and shouldn't be used to deny earned benefits.
The part that doesn't check out is she says she liked working for FedEx for 26 years. That's clearly a lie.

The law was considered to be constitutional on the day she passed away.

I don't agree with the company's position---I think they should bend the rules and do the right thing for this family---but they are well within their legal rights to deny the pension benefits.

 

[Nolimitz]

The law was considered to be constitutional on the day she passed away.

I don't agree with the company's position---I think they should bend the rules and do the right thing for this family---but they are well within their legal rights to deny the pension benefits.

If they paid other benefits sue to a spouse, they need to pony up 100%

It did recognize Schuett as a spouse for smaller survivor benefits.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

If they paid other benefits sue to a spouse, they need to pony up 100%

They have done all that they are legally required to do.

 

[Nolimitz]

you are in NY not Cali. nor are you a lawyer that I'm aware of. FedEx needs to pay up. IMHO

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

you are in NY not Cali. nor are you a lawyer that I'm aware of. FedEx needs to pay up. IMHO

You don't need to be a lawyer to see that the company acted within the rules in place at the time of her death.

 

[Nolimitz]

they paid partial spouse benefits yet denied others. Cant have it both ways. Either she gets all or none. Did you even read part of the article.

 

[oldngray]

If she wins her suit then she was owed benefits. If she loses then FedEx acted legally. I think FedEx did follow all they were legally required to do so until the law changes or an activist judge re-interprets the law that is how things will be.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Suppose the situation were reversed---the law that allowed for benefits on the day she died was deemed unconstitutional 6 days later. Would the company then be legally and/or morally obligate to continue paying those benefits or would it be OK for them to cut them off?

You need to set aside your emotions and realize that the company did what they were legally obligated to do.

 

[dezguy]

Disgusting but not surprising.

 

[vantexan]

they paid partial spouse benefits yet denied others. Cant have it both ways. Either she gets all or none. Did you even read part of the article.

Is that the law, all or nothing? Problem I have is they got married the day before she died. Does that entitle spouse, gay or not, to all benefits earned over 26 years? FedEx didn't just say no, they had legal team look it over. Do you think insurance companies would give a policy to someone they know has serious medical problems? They'd go broke.

 

[Mr. 7]

This whole thing had to be well known by the employee the whole time she was working w/FDX. I once had a conversation with a lesbian co-worker about this exact thing, that X does not recognize gay partnerships and that her partner would never get any of the bennefits if my co-worker were to pass. This was years ago, she was well aware of it although, she didn't like it.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

We have had several instances where retirees who had not chosen the survivor benefits option for their pension passed away within 6 months of retirement, leaving their widows in financial limbo. The Union would have been well within their legal rights to have denied pension benefits to the widows but in each case they simply recalculated the pension benefit to where it would have been had the survivor benefits option been chosen prior to retirement and paid the reduced benefit every month for how ever many months it is contractually required to.

The "quickie" marriage tells me that they knew that there was the strong possibility that the widow would be denied her spouses pension benefit.

 

[EffOff]

"Her wife". Ick. Sorry, but I'll never get used to that.

 

[Maui]

I know the former employee. I do believe that she enjoyed working for FedEx and that, according to Stacey, FedEx treated her well while she was battling cancer. In Northern California a large number of the female couriers are LGBT.

I don't think it is simply a matter of marrying just before she dies. It is more complicated than that due to the law in California and nationwide while they were together. I hope FedEx pays the benefit because it is the right thing to do.