AT&T Did not Improperly Delay QDRO Payment
May 1, 2009 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has found that
AT&T Inc.'s pension plan administrator did not act
improperly by not immediately paying lump-sum benefits to an
employee's ex-wife under two domestic relations
orders.
According to the court opinion, neither the first
domestic relations order (DRO) nor an amended DRO
entitled Sigrid V. Green to the immediate payment of
pension benefits. The court determined Green was entitled
to a calculated portion of her ex-husband's pension
benefits on the earlier of his retirement date, even if
he has not yet retired, or when he elects to start
receiving benefits.
U.S. District Judge David D. Noce wrote in the
opinion that following the provisions of the QDRO,
AT&T properly withheld the payments, and did not
breach its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).
The court also rejected Green's argument that
AT&T was liable for statutory penalties for failing
to timely provide her with a copy of a summary plan
description. Green did not make a clear and specific
request for an SPD as required by ERISA Section
104(b)(4). In June 2006 she sent Fidelity Employer
Services Co. an e-mail requesting QDRO
"calculations" and a "calculation
kit," the opinion noted
Richard and Sigrid Green were married in July 2001,
and were divorced in September 2005. During the marriage,
Richard worked for AT&T Services Inc., an affiliate
of AT&T, and participated in the company's
pension plan. AT&T was the named administrator of the
plan.
Under the terms of the former couple's DRO,
Sigrid was awarded 79.1% of Richard's pension
account, not including its balance prior to the date they
were married. The company determined that the DRO was a
QDRO, so Sigrid sought immediate payment of her portion
of the benefits. Fidelity Employer Services Co.,
contracted by AT&T to perform plan functions
determined that Sigrid was not entitled to immediate
payment of the benefits and also disputed the amount of
benefits to which Sigrid was entitled.
In June 2007, Green obtained an amended DRO
recalculating her share of the pension account, but that
order also did not call for immediate lump-sum payment of
the benefits.
The case is
Green v. AT&T Inc.,
E.D. Mo., No. 4:07 CV 1537 DDN, 4/29/09.
Rebecca Moore
editors@plansponsor.com