Case 8:18-cv PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION

Similar documents
Case: 3:15-cv wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 01/28/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 2:99-cv SCB Document 1 Filed 05/12/1999 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 59 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:143

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/05/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 3:12-cv IEG-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 09/19/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1029

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:16-cv JFM Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Case 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 65 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv CMA-CBS Document 22 Filed 02/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff R.J. Zayed ( Plaintiff or Receiver ), through his undersigned counsel

Case 2:17-cv SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : :

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 1:12-cv ELH Document 1 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:14-cv Document 1 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CASE NO.

Case 3:13-cv AC Document 1 Filed 03/09/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

INTRODUCTION. TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("UBER" or "Defendant") pursuant to North Carolina's Unfair and

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Civil Action No. 09-CV-367

Case 1:12-cv KBF Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 13. ov JUDGB FORREST ECFCASE. JURy TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:16-cv JEO Document 1 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

Case 2:12-cv CCC-JAD Document 1 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. Plaintiff, v. Case No. COMPLAINT

Filing # E-Filed 05/23/ :26:50 PM

Case 7:18-cv VB Document 1 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. Plaintiff, Plaintiff the United States of America alleges as follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

EEOC v. Ralphs Grocery

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:17-cv JMV-SCM Document 1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : :

Case 2:18-cv SJF-SIL Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ERISA Causes of Action *

Case 2:18-cv JAW Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

Case 4:14-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/17/14 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1

Case 1:13-cv PLM Doc #8 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 17 Page ID#44

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 0:14-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2014 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 3:12-cv HZ Document 23-1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#: 87

Defendant. Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

Case KG Doc 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

8:17-cv RFR-FG3 Doc # 1 Filed: 05/26/17 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No x.

Case 1:17-cv NYW Document 1 Filed 03/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:17-cv BR Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 21

Case 1:15-cv RGA Document 167 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 9250 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

8:18-cv DCC Date Filed 01/03/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 2:18-cv Document 3 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION. Negligence

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

4:10-cv TLW Date Filed 03/18/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case No.: CLASS ACTION. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1692, ET SEQ.

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv DAK Document 2 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 10

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 141 Filed: 12/06/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1455

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) PLAINTIFFS CLASS ACTION ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, ) JURY DEMANDED vs.

Case 1:17-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION COMPLAINT

Case 1:13-cv NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

a l'-4~f.ljr WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAI). c r'l~ l.-<{ivs-4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 5:08-cv JF Document 13 Filed 06/24/2008 Page 1 of 7

Case 7:18-cv NSR Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs.

Case 1:16-cv SMV-WPL Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO DANNIE FAIL, SCOTT BUCHHOLZ, CHRISTIAN ANDERSONN, JOHN ZONTA,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

I c~~ U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:16-cv BSJ Document 2 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:18-cv Document 3 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CIVIL DIVISION

Case 3:17-cv PK Document 1 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 4:14-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 10/03/14 Page: 1 of 16 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv UU Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2016 Page 1 of 14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Angelo Bottoni, Paul Roberts, Tracie Serrano, and Shawnee Silva, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

Transcription:

Case 8:18-cv-02583-PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION ERNIE BRANDENBURG, 2820 Park Mills Road Adamstown, MD 21710 Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-02583 MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMPLAINT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 850 Hungerford Drive JURY TRIAL DEMAND Room 156 Rockville, MD 20850 Defendant. NATURE OF ACTION This is an action initiated by Ernie Brandenburg, for himself and others similarly situated, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634, against their former employer, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), challenging the MCPS Employees Retirement and Pension System Plan s policy of denying accidental disability retirement benefits to employees, like Brandenburg, who became disabled because of a workrelated accident at age 62 or older. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, this being an action to enforce rights guaranteed by federal statutes. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 626(b) and 626(c), the former of which incorporates 29 U.S.C. 1

Case 8:18-cv-02583-PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 2 of 6 216(b). 2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the discriminatory acts alleged below were committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Ernie Brandenburg, is a resident of Adamstown, Maryland, in Frederick County, which is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division. His birth date is October 20, 1951, and he is 66 years old as of the filing of this Complaint. 4. At all relevant times Defendant MCPS has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 11(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 630(b). FACTS 5. MCPS established the MCPS Employees Retirement and Pension Systems through a series of mergers and consolidations. See page 1 of MCPS Employees Retirement and Pension Plan attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 1. 6. A member of the MCPS under the age of 62 (which is the normal retirement age) who is awarded a service connected disability retirement receives 2/3 of salary for the rest of his or her life. A member over 62 who is awarded service connected disability retirement only receives an ordinary retirement benefit, which is substantially less. See MCPS Publication Understanding Your Retirement: Employees Retirement, Pension, and Reformed Pension System Retirement Benefits and Process, in part, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 2. Workers over the age of 62 who suffer a service connected disability are ineligible for a serviceconnected disability retirement solely on the basis of their age. 2

Case 8:18-cv-02583-PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 3 of 6 7. Mr. Brandenburg worked for MCPS for approximately 11 years as a maintenance worker. He was an Auto Tech II. His duties included supervising shifts of mechanics that work on school buses as well as performing mechanics work himself. Mr. Brandenburg sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of performing his work duties. His injury occurred in November 2015, while adjusting a school bus that was not properly secured on a lift saddle. He required medical treatment and ultimately shoulder reconstruction surgery. As a direct result of the accident, Mr. Brandenburg s injury left him unable to perform the requirements of his job. 8. Mr. Brandenburg received a worker s compensation award on February 2, 2017, for the above described accident in which he was awarded both temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits. Subsequently, on or about February 21, 2017, Mr. Brandenburg, pro se, prepared an application for regular retirement as of April 1, 2017, because he no longer could perform his job for MCPS. When Mr. Brandenburg went to MCPS to file the application, MCPS personnel told him that he should instead file an application for accidental disability retirement. MCPS did not notify Mr. Brandenburg that he would not get additional benefits from changing his application to an accidental disability retirement application. Further, MCPS did not notify Mr. Brandenburg that by taking an accidental disability retirement that his award of accidental disability retirement benefits would be offset from his worker s compensation award, which would not only eliminate his worker compensation award, but also create an overpayment of $5,926.27. 3

Case 8:18-cv-02583-PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 4 of 6 9. Mr. Brandenburg, on the advice of MCPS, changed his application to an application for accidental disability retirement which he filed that same day. 10. His application was approved by the Disability Retirement Review Board by decision dated March 13, 2017. Mr. Brandenburg retired on April 1, 2017. 11. Even though the Disability Retirement Review Board approved his accidental disability retirement application, Mr. Brandenburg received an ordinary retirement benefit. 12. The gross monthly amount that Mr. Brandenburg would have received for a service connected accidental disability retirement had he been younger than 62 when he applied for the benefit would have been at least $4,229.88, which is two-thirds of his last salary. Instead, he receives the gross monthly amount of $1,325.54, the base pension amount at normal retirement. Mr. Brandenburg will lose approximately $34,852.08 annually due to this difference. 13. Mr. Brandenburg appealed his award of an ordinary retirement benefit versus the service connected disability monthly retirement for which he applied. On June 13, 2017, MCPS confirmed in writing that because Mr. Brandenburg was over age 62 at the time he had applied for service connected disability retirement benefits, he was not entitled to a higher benefit due to a service-connected disability. See June 13, 2017 Letter from Shafeena Yunus, Senior Retirement Specialist with the MCPS Employee and Retiree Service Center in response to a request to review and reconsider Mr. Brandenburg s award to correct his monthly payment amount (with cited code) attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 3. 14. As of the filing of this Complaint, Mr. Brandenburg s retirement benefit remains an ordinary retirement benefit, not a service-connected disability retirement benefit. 4

Case 8:18-cv-02583-PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 5 of 6 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 15. Plaintiff, who is over the age of 40, and all similarly situated individuals, were subjected to adverse employment actions by the Defendant by being denied a service-connected disability retirement solely because of their age. 16. These actions constituted age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 17. Mr. Brandenburg filed a charge of age discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 18, 2017. The charge is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 4. 18. Through this timely charge of age discrimination which was filed more than sixty days prior to the initiation of this action, Plaintiff has satisfied all administrative prerequisites to this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests the following relief: 1. A finding that the Plan provision in question facially discriminates against Mr. Brandenburg and all similarly situated individuals; 2. A declaration that the Plan provision in question violates the ADEA; 3. Order that the plan provision be considered null and void: 4. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant MCPS, its officers, successors assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, including the MCPS Employees 5

Case 8:18-cv-02583-PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 6 of 6 Retirement and Pension Systems, from enforcing the age discriminatory pension provision against Mr. Brandenburg or any other similarly situated individual; 5. Order Defendant MCPS to make whole Ernie Brandenburg and all similarly situated individuals by awarding them a service-connected disability retirement benefits that is calculated and paid the same as for workers under the age of 62, with prejudgment interest and recalculated future benefits, in amounts to be determined at trial; 6. Ancillary relief in the form of the costs of this action including reasonable attorney fees; and 7. Grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by their Complaint. Respectfully Submitted, Laurie McCann (pro hac vice pending) DC Bar No. 461509 AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E St., NW Washington, DC 20049 lmccann@aarp.org (202) 434-2082 Dara S. Smith (pro hac vice pending) DC Bar No. 1027046 AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E St., NW Washington, DC 20049 dsmith@aarp.org (202) 434-6280 /s/elliott Andalman Elliott Andalman, M.D. Bar No.: 05769 Andalman & Flynn, P.C. 8601 Georgia Ave, Suite 206 Silver Spring, MD 20910 eandalman@a-f.net (301) 563-6685 6