November 10, 2026
A Georgia federal judge Monday refused to toss a proposed class action from Southern Co. pensioners who alleged their annuity benefits were shortchanged due to outdated mortality data used in conversions, holding allegations were plausible that the conduct breached duties of prudence and loyalty under federal benefits law.
U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones docketed an order denying Southern Co. Services Inc.’s motion to dismiss the Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit. Southern Co. ex-workers William Drummond and Richard Odom filed suit in 2022 alleging that married pensioners were underpaid on benefits due to outdated actuarial assumptions, including old mortality tables, used to convert their annuities from single-life to joint-and-survivor form.
Judge Jones said in his order Monday that the proposed class had sufficiently detailed in its complaint how Southern Co.’s retirement plan committee, which is also named as a defendant in the case, was aware that the actuarial community had updated assumptions to reflect increased longevity.
“Yet the committee chose to still use the outdated assumptions when calculating the plan participants’ joint and survivor annuities — resulting in lower payments to participants as opposed to the higher payment if the updated actuarial assumptions had been used,” the judge said.
Judge Jones said the committee’s move of keeping the old assumptions in spite of knowing there was better data “resulted in the committee prioritizing defendant Southern Co.’s financial savings at the expense of plaintiff’s best interests.”
Judge Jones also said that the Eleventh Circuit, which revived the case in May, had ruled that the proposed class had sufficiently backed up allegations that Southern Co.’s pension plan terms violated ERISA. But the court would defer ruling on whether deviating from those terms was required under federal benefits laws, Judge Jones said.
“At this time, the court recognizes that ERISA permits a fiduciary to not follow a plan’s terms that violate ERISA but does not reach a conclusion on whether an affirmative duty to deviate is imposed,” the judge said.
Judge Jones had dismissed the case in July 2024 based on a holding that ERISA didn’t require actuarial assumptions to be reasonable, which the Eleventh Circuit reversed.
. . .
Dan Sutter, an attorney for the proposed class, said when asked for comment on the decision, “We are pleased with the ruling and look forward to moving ahead with discovery. The decision properly allows plaintiffs to pursue their claim that using outdated actuarial assumptions to shortchange retirees violates ERISA’s fiduciary duties.”
. . .
The individual workers and the proposed class of Southern Co. retirees are represented by Jeff Hahn of Stris & Maher LLP, by Michelle C. Yau, Daniel R. Sutter and Kai H. Richter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by John T. Sparks Sr. of Austin & Sparks PC, by Todd Jackson and Nina Wasow of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP and by Shaun Martin of the University of San Diego School of Law.
Read Southern Co. Can’t Toss ERISA Fight 11th Circ. Revived.