Summary of the Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges claims against Northrop Grumman Corporation and the Northrop Grumman Severance Plan failed to provide severance benefits to certain pursuant to terms of the Plan that Northrop Grumman wrongfully interfered with the payment of severance benefits and/or breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the disclosures made to participants about the Plan.  This action, entitled Carlson et al v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan et al is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Summary of the Claims

The Complaint alleges that Northrop Grumman and the Plan failed to properly pay benefits to Plaintiffs and the Class pursuant to the terms of the Severance Plan, that Northrop wrongfully interfered with the benefits to which Plaintiffs and the Class were entitled under the Plan.   Alternatively, the Complaint alleges that Northrop breached its fiduciary duty of by failing to properly disclose and explain the eligibility rules of the Plan, including any change to those eligibility rules as of October 2011 – namely with respect to any change with respect to the function regarding the memorandum from a Vice President of Human Resources – and that as a remedy, the Complaint requests reformation of the plan and an order that benefits be paid consistent with the reformed plan.

Class Action Allegations

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of the following former employees of Northrop Grumman:

All persons who worked for Northrop Grumman in the United States, were regularly scheduled to work over 20 hours per week, were laid off from Northrop Grumman from January 1, 2012 and after, and who did not receive a written notification from management or from a Vice President of Human Resources notifying them of their eligibility for severance benefits (the Salary Continuation Benefits) under the Plan and who did not receive the cash portion of the severance benefits under the terms of the plan (regardless of whether they receive medical, dental, or vision benefits under the plan).

Excluded from the Class are participants who fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) Employees of the Electronic Systems Sector who work at BWI, Annapolis, Sykesville (including FE&S employees and FE&S offsite offices and facilities), Troy Hill, Sunnyvale or Kings Bay, (2) Employees of the Technical Services Sector who are classified by Northrop Grumman as being in the following employment categories (a) Service Contract Act (SCA) employees, (b) Union Represented employees, (c) Employees covered by a Memorandum of Understanding between the TS Sector and ES Sector providing for the temporary assignment of the employee to the TS Sector and retention of participation in the ES Sector employee benefit programs, (d) employees covered by the Electronic Systems Sector severance benefit program, and (e) employees represented by a union whose collective bargaining agreement does not provide for participation in the Plan; (3) any fiduciaries or other persons who had any decision-making or administrative authority with respect to the Plan and the members of the immediate family of any such person.

Status of the Litigation

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on April 4, 2013. The Court denied Defendants motion to dismiss on March 31, 2014.  The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend their Complaint to assert class allegations on June 26, 2014.  Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint asserting claims on behalf of the Class on October 22, 2014 and filed a motion for class certification the same day.

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on April 4, 2013. The Court denied Defendants motion to dismiss on March 31, 2014.   The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend their Complaint to assert class allegations on June 26, 2014.  Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint asserting claims on behalf of the Class on October 22, 2014 and filed a motion for class certification the same day.

On July 11, 2016l, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.  Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint is due April 15, 2016.  Discovery is ongoing. 

Whom to Contact for More Information

If you are a member of the proposed class or you have information which might assist us in the prosecution of these allegations, please contact one of the following persons:

R. Joseph Barton, Esq. jbarton@cohenmilstein.com 
Kira Hettinger, Esq. khettinger@cohenmilstein.com
Ming Siegel, Paralegal msiegel@cohenmilstein.com
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600

Cohen Milstein is co-counsel in this litigation with the Roberts Bartolic, LLP.