Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Recent Developments from Around the States

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
June 28, 2006

Verizon to Pay $48.9 Million in Lost Pension Benefits

Verizon Wireless Communications will pay certain former female employees a total of $48.9 million for pension service credits wrongfully denied while on pregnancy and maternity leave as a result of an Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) consent decree entered in 2002. EEOC v. Bell Atlantic, S.D.N.Y., No. 97 Civ. 6723, final report on consent decree submitted 6/5/06).

The consent decree resolved two pregnancy discrimination lawsuits filed by the EEOC in 1997 and 1999 on behalf of some 12,300 current and former female employees denied pension credit for their pregnancy and maternity leaves by NYNEX and Bell Atlantic, two of Verizon's predecessor companies. The lawsuits alleged violations of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act stemming from the companies' denial of service credits affecting pension eligibility to their female employees. One suit had been filed by the Communication Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on behalf of the organizations' female unionized employees, and the other was brought by the EEOC on behalf of female management employees. The final consent decree, which was submitted to and approved by Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, covered all female employees of the two companies located in 13 eastern states and the District of Columbia who took either pregnancy- or maternity-related leaves of absence between July 2, 1965 and April 28, 1979, and/or leaves of absence to care for a newborn between July 2, 1965 and Dec. 31, 1983. In accordance with the decree, the employees were granted between 2 and 7 weeks of additional service credits per pregnancy, depending on when their leave was taken, and some were given enhanced service credit adjustments if they were denied early retirement incentive opportunities as a result of the companies' misconduct.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?