The Complaint alleges that many former Exxon/Mobil employees were denied substantial severance benefits because of Exxon/Mobil's improper interpretation of an express term of its own severance plan.
Following its merger with Mobil in 1999, Exxon demanded that many of its employees relocate in excess of 50 miles from their previous employment location.
The Complaint alleges that the express terms of a severance plan allowed such employees to resign with full severance benefits if they elected not to sell their homes and move their families to new locations further than 50 miles away.
The Complaint alleges that Exxon/Mobil, contrary to the express terms of the severance plan, took the position that a "principal place of employment" was not where an employee lived and worked, but rather the location where the Company wanted the employee to move following the merger.
Plaintiff and members of the Class, however, never lived, worked or paid taxes at the location Exxon/Mobil arbitrarily designated as their "principal place of employment." The Complaint further alleges that plaintiff and members of the Class were forced to move more than 50 miles or face termination without the severance benefits to which they were entitled.
The Complaint alleges that Exxon/Mobil's denial of benefits to plaintiffs and members of the Class was unreasonable and capricious in violation of the express terms of the severance plan and ERISA.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court of Colorado on behalf of John Scott Hornafius on July 23, 2002 and seeks class action status.
If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this class action please fill in our form on the right to submit your complaint.
If your injustice does not match the complaint described above, please use this form to register your complaint. Thank you.
