Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 297
`Case 2:17-cv—00140-RWS—RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 297
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 298
`
`1 MARVIN K. ANDERSON (State Bar No. 130297)
`AT&T SERVICES, INC. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
`525 Market Street 20th Floor
`Room 2004
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: (415) 778-1355
`Facsimile: (415) 882-4458
`Email: ma1257@att.com
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`7
`
`8
`
`J. SCOTT PAISLEY (State Bar No. 94236)
`6 AT&T SERVICES, INC. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
`525 Market Street, Suite 2001
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: (415) 778-1213
`Facsimile: (415) 882-4458
`Email: jp2749@att.com
`
`9
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`10 AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN
`NONBARGAINEDPROGRAM
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN -
`20 NONBARGAINED PROGRAM,
`
`UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`QUILLER BARNES,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`) Case No. CV 08-04058 MHP
`)
`)
`) ANSWER OF DEFENDANT AT&T
`) PENSION BENEFIT PLAN -
`) NONBARGAINED PRGORAM TO
`) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`) (CLASS ACTION)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendant
`________________ )
`Defendant AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN -NONBARGAINED PROGRAM
`
`("Defendant" or "the AT&T Pension Plan") hereby answers the Amended Complaint ("Amended
`
`Complaint") filed by Plaintiff Quiller Barnes ("Plaintiff") as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
`
`1.
`
`In answer to paragraph l of the Amended Complaint, there are no charging
`
`allegations calling for an admission or a deniaL Rather, paragraph 1 constitutes an introductory
`
`ANSWER OF DE:FENl)ANT AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN - NONBARGAINim PROGRA!\'1 TO
`PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION} (Case No CV 08-04058 MIIP)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 299
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`paragraph which purports to set forth the nature of Plaintiffs action and a general description of
`
`the purported class and relief being sought. As such, Defendant neither admits nor denies the
`
`allegations contained therein. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff is purporting to bring an
`
`action under ERIS A on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated with respect to
`
`the "Pacific Telesis Group Cash Balance Pension Plan for Salaried Employees," (the "PTG
`
`Pension Plan"). The PTG Pension Plan was merged into the SBC Pension Benefit Plan -
`
`7 Nonbargained Program (the "SBC Pension Plan") in January, 1999, and was thereafter renamed
`
`8
`
`the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan - Nonbargained Program (the "AT&T Pension Plan") on
`
`9 November 18, 2005. The gist of Plaintiff's complaint is that he was entitled to a "redetermined"
`
`10 Acceleration Transition Benefit ("ATB"), adjusted to reflect his additional years of age and
`
`11
`
`12
`
`service after he was rehired and then retired again from his employment with Pacific Bell
`
`Telephone Company. Plaintiff's claim is based on a fundamental misunderstanding and
`
`13 misinterpretation of section 3 .4( d)(3) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument which contemplates an
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`adjusted A TB for employees who elected to receive the benefit as a monthly annuity after their
`
`first term of employment. Employees who cash out the ATB in full as a lump sum, such as
`
`Plaintiff, have nothing left to "redetermine" and thus upon rehire are entitled only to the Cash
`
`Balance Benefit ( or later, the Career Average Minimum Benefit - "CAM"), as set forth in section
`
`3.4(a) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument and section 10-30 of the Summary Plan Description
`
`("SPD") for the PTG Pension Plan. For this reason, and the further reasons set forth below,
`
`20 Defendant denies Plaintiff's claims.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2.
`
`In answer to paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that, in general, under section 3.2 of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument, a salaried
`
`was employed
`
`a Participating Company on March
`
`1996, and was a
`
`Participant in the Plan on any date during the period beginning March
`
`1996 and ending on
`
`July 1, 1996, was entitled on termination of employment to receive the greater of a Cash Balance
`
`Benefit or the Accelerated Transition Benefit ("ATB"), as calculated under the PTG Pension Plan
`
`Instrument Defendant further admits that, under section 52 of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument
`
`ANSWER OJ.' DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN NONBARGAINED PROGRA'\1 TO
`PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION) (Case No CV 08-04058 MHP)
`
`2
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 3 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 300
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`the ATB potentially was subject to an early payment discount based on the Participant's age and
`
`Term of Employment. The particulars of those benefits and benefit calculations are subject to the
`
`terms of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument, which constitute the best evidence thereof. Except as
`
`so admitted and alleged, and to the extent the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Amended
`
`Complaint vary from, or are qualified by, the terms of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument,
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`In answer to paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that under the terms of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument, a salaried employee who
`
`terminated employment on or after March 22, 1996, and elected an A TB benefit in the form of a
`
`10 monthly annuity that was subject to an age discount under section 5.2, was subsequently rehired
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
`
`26
`
`and then retired again after bridging his or her service, was potentially entitled to a benefit
`
`consisting of the prior ATB annuity adjusted to reflect the employee's age and term of
`
`employment at his or her next termination. The particulars of that benefit and benefit calculation,
`
`are subject to the terms of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument, which constitute the best evidence
`
`thereof. Except as so admitted and alleged, and to the extent the allegations of paragraph 3 of the
`
`Amended Complaint vary from, or are qualified by, the terms of the PTG Pension Plan
`
`Instrument, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 3, and specifically
`
`denies that section 3 .4( d)(3) of the Plan Instrument relating to the adjustment of the A TB applies
`
`to employees who took the A TB benefit in the form of a lump sum payment as Plaintiff did.
`
`4.
`
`In answer to paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that, prior to the merger of the PTG Pension Plan into the SBC Pension Plan, a rehired
`
`salaried employee who met all of the eligibility requirements set forth in the PTG Pension Plan
`
`was
`
`to a monthly Cash Balance Benefit under section 4.S(b) of the PTG Pension Plan
`
`Instrument upon the employee's next termination of employment, based on allocations to the
`
`employee's cash balance account from the employee's rehire date to the Annuity Start Date that
`
`applies to the Cash Balance Benefit. After the merger of the PTG Pension Plan into the SBC
`
`Pension Plan, and after the amendment of the SBC Pension Plan on September 28, 2001, by
`
`ANSWER ffF DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENHIT PLAN. NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`(Case No CV 08-04058 MHP)
`PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION)
`
`3
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 4 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 301
`
`1 which the Career Average Minimum benefit ("CAM Benefit") was added to the SBC Pension
`Plan, the rehired employee was entitled to the Cash Balance Benefit or the CAM benefit,
`2
`3 whichever was greater. The particulars of those benefits, the qualifications and conditions for
`those benefits, and the manner of calculating those benefits, are subject to the terms of the PTO
`Pension Plan and SBC Pension Plan Instruments, which constitute the best evidence thereof.
`Except as so admitted and alleged, and to the extent the allegations of paragraph 4 of the
`6
`7 Amended Complaint vary from, or are qualified by, the terms of the PTO Pension Plan Instrument
`and/or the SBC Pension Plan Instrument, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in
`
`4
`
`5
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`28
`
`paragraph 4.
`
`In answer to paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`5.
`alleges that salaried employees who terminated their employment on or after March 22, 1996, and
`cashed out their ATB in the form of a lump sum instead of an annuity, such as Plaintiff did, were
`not entitled to have that benefit "redetermined" or recalculated under section 3 .4( d)(3) of the PTO
`Pension Plan Instrument if they were subsequently rehired and retired again after bridging their
`service. Such employees were only entitled to a Cash Balance Benefit or, after September 28,
`2001, the greater of the Cash Balance Benefit or the CAMS benefit. Only employees who took
`their A TB in the form of an annuity were entitled to have that benefit adjusted to reflect the
`employee's additional age and term of employment upon their subsequent termination of
`employment. Except as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint.
`In answer to paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant denies that
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief set forth therein.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`In answer to paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that the
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C. §
`
`1132(a).
`
`8.
`
`In answer to paragraph 8
`
`the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that the
`
`4
`ANSWER OF DKFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN NONBARGAJNED PROGRAM TO
`PLAINTffF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION)· (Case No CV 08-04058 MHP)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 5 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 302
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
`
`26
`
`28
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
`
`9.
`
`In answer to paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that venue
`
`is proper in this judicial district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`In answer to paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that
`
`Plaintiff Quiller Barnes is a former employee of Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("Pacific
`
`Bell"), and that Pacific Bell was a Participating Company in the PTG Pension Plan. Defendant
`
`further admits that Plaintiff was a Participant in the PTG Pension Plan at the time of his first
`
`retirement on October 29, 1996. After his rehire on May 1, 1997, he again became a Participant
`
`in the PTG Pension Plan, and continued to be a Participant after the merger of the PTG Pension
`
`Plan into the SBC Pension Plan in 1999. Except as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`In answer to paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan Nonbargained Program, is an "employee pension
`
`benefit plan" within the meaning ofERlSA § 3(2)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(a) and is a "defined
`
`benefit plan" within the meaning of ERISA § 3(35), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(35). Defendant further
`
`admits that the PTG Pension Plan was merged into the SBC Pension Benefit Plan Nonbargained
`
`Program (the "SBC Pension Plan") effective as of January 1, 1999. The SBC Pension Plan was
`
`subsequently renamed the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan Nonbargained Program (the "AT&T
`
`Pension Plan") effective November 18, 2005, following the acquisition of AT&T Corp. by SBC
`
`Communications Inc. Defendant further admits that the AT&T Pension Plan is liable for all
`
`benefit obligations, if any, owed by the PTG Pension Plan to former Participants of the PTG
`
`Pension Plan.
`
`as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph
`
`11 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`RELEVANT NON-PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`In answer to paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that AT&T Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Dallas,
`
`5
`ANSWER O-F DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEJ<Tf PLAN NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`PLAINTIFPS AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION) (Case No C\' 08-04058 MHP)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 6 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 303
`
`I
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Texas. Defendant further admits and alleges that AT&T Inc. was formerly known as SBC
`Communications Inc. until it changed its name to AT&T Inc. after its acquisition of AT&T Corp.
`in or about 2005. Except as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations contained
`
`in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint.
`Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Amended
`
`13.
`
`Complaint.
`
`In answer to paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`14.
`alleges that in 1996 Pacific Telesis Group was the parent company of Pacific Bell Telephone
`Company and was the sponsor of the PTO Pension Plan. Defendant further admits and alleges
`that Pacific Telesis Group merged with SBC Communications Inc. in 1997. Except as so
`admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint sets forth the description of the class on
`15.
`whose behalf Plaintiff is purporting to bring this action. It does not contain any charging
`allegations that call for an admission or denial, and as such Defendant neither admits nor denies
`
`any of the allegations contained in paragraph 15.
`In answer to paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant is without
`16.
`knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and on that basis denies
`each of the allegations contained in paragraph 16, and specifically denies that it would be proper
`
`to certify a class herein.
`Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 7 of the Amended
`
`17.
`
`Complaint and specifically denies that it would be proper to certify a class herein.
`Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Amended
`
`18.
`Complaint and specifically denies that it would be proper to certify a class herein.
`Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Amended
`
`19.
`
`Complaint and specifically denies that it would be proper to certify a class herein.
`
`6
`.\NSWER OF DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEf'IT PLAN - NON BARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`(Case No CV 08-04058 '\HIP)
`PLAINTffF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION}
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 7 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 304
`
`20.
`
`In answer to paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that the Plan Administrator must interpret the Plan consistently. Except as so admitted
`
`and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20, and specifically denies
`
`that it would be proper to certify a class herein under Rule 23(b)(l)(B).
`
`21.
`
`In answer to paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that the Plan Administrator must interpret the Plan consistently. Except as so admitted
`
`and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21, and specifically denies
`
`that it would be proper to certify a class herein under Rule 23(b)(l)(A).
`
`22.
`
`In answer to paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`
`alleges that the Plan Administrator must interpret the Plan consistently. Except as so admitted
`
`and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22, and specifically denies
`
`that it would be proper to certify a class herein under Rule 23(b)(2).
`
`23.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Amended
`
`Complaint and specifically denies that it would be proper to certify a class herein under Rule
`
`23(b)(3).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`24.
`
`The allegations of paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint are so broad, vague
`
`and conclusory that Defendant cannot meaningfully respond to them, and on that basis denies
`
`each and every allegation.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20 A.
`
`The Restructuring and Workforce Reduction of PTG
`
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`28
`
`25.
`
`The allegations of paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint are so broad, vague
`
`and conclusory that Defendant cannot meaningfully respond to them, and on that basis denies
`
`and
`
`allegation.
`
`26.
`
`Paragraph
`
`of the Amended Complaint consists of a recitation of a purported
`
`news report. It does not contain any charging allegations which call for an admission or a denial,
`
`and as such Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26.
`Further, Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief as to whether Bloomberg, LP. in fact
`
`7
`ANS\VER OF DE.FENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`(Case No CV 08-04058 \HIP)
`PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 8 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 305
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`issued the report cited in paragraph 26, and whether Plaintiff has accurately quoted it.
`In answer to paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`
`27.
`
`1995 PTG Form 10-K speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
`In answer to paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
`28.
`information and belief with respect to the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies
`the allegations. Defendant further asserts that the allegations are irrelevant to the issues raised in
`
`this action.
`
`In answer to paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
`29.
`information and belief with respect to the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies
`the allegations, except that Defendant admits that Plaintiffs employment by Pacific Bell
`Telephone Company terminated on October 29, 1996, and that at the time of the termination
`
`Plaintiff was a Participant in the PTG Pension Plan.
`In answer to paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
`30.
`information and belief with respect to the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies
`
`the allegations.
`In answer to paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
`31.
`information and belief with respect to the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies
`the allegations, except that Defendant admits that Plaintiff was rehired by Pacific Bell Telephone
`
`Company on May 1, 1 997.
`In answer to paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
`32.
`information and belief with respect to the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies
`the allegations, except that Defendant admits that Plaintiff again became a Participant in the PTG
`
`~ .. ~,~,. Plan after his rehire.
`
`B.
`
`Pacific Telesis Group Cash Balance Plan
`In answer to paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`
`33.
`
`1996 PTG Form 10-K speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
`In answer to paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`
`34.
`
`8
`ANSWER OF DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN · NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`PLAINTI:FF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION). (Case No CV 08-04058 l\clllP)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 9 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 306
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
`
`26
`
`28
`
`1996 PTG Form 10-K speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. In further
`response, Defendant admits that effective July 1, 1996, the PTG Pension Plan was amended to
`change from a "final pay" defined pension benefit plan to a "cash balance" defined pension
`
`benefit plan.
`
`In answer to paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`35.
`alleges that prior to the institution of the Cash Balance Benefit, Participants under the PTG
`Pension Plan generally were entitled to receive pension benefits based on certain age and service
`criteria. Except as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 35 of
`
`the Amended Complaint.
`In answer to paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`36.
`1996 PTG Form 10-K speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
`The allegations of paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint are so broad, vague
`37.
`and conclusory that Defendant cannot meaningfully respond to them, and on that basis denies
`
`each and every allegation.
`In answer to paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that,
`38.
`effective July 1, 1996, the service pension formula of the PTG Pension Plan was replaced with the
`cash benefit formula, under which salaried employees generally were entitled to receive a Cash
`Balance Benefit or an A TB, whichever was greater. In further response, Defendant states that the
`publication entitled "Important Changes to Your Pension Benefits" (the "PTG Pension Plan
`Booklet"), speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, and denies the allegations of
`paragraph 3 8 to the extent they are contrary to the contents of the PTG Pension Plan Booklet.
`In answer to paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`the extent
`its contents.
`
`Pension Plan Booklet speaks for itself and is the best evidence
`Plaintiffs allegations are contrary to the contents of the PTG Pension Plan Booklet, Defendant
`
`39.
`
`denies the allegations.
`In answer to paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`40.
`PTG Pension Plan Booklet speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. To the extent
`
`9
`A"iSWER OF DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`(Case No CV 08-04058 :\HIP}
`PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 10 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 307
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Plaintiffs allegations are contrary to the contents of the PTO Pension Plan Booklet, Defendant
`
`denies the allegations.
`In answer to paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`41.
`PTO Pension Plan Booklet speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. To the extent
`Plaintiffs allegations are contrary to the contents of the PTO Pension Plan Booklet, Defendant
`
`denies the allegations.
`
`C.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`The PTG Pension Plan Benefit Binder
`In answer to paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`42.
`alleges that in or about June or July 1996, a binder entitled "Benefits 90's, Summary Plan
`9
`10 Descriptions - July 1996," (the "PTO Benefits Binder") was distributed to employees of Pacific
`Bell, containing summary plan descriptions of some or all of the benefit plans offered to
`employees of various PTO Companies. Except as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
`
`26
`
`28
`
`allegations of paragraph 42.
`In answer to paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`43.
`PTO Benefits Binder speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. To the extent
`Plaintiffs allegations are contrary to the contents of the PTO Benefits Binder, Defendant denies
`
`the allegations.
`In answer to paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`44.
`alleges that Tab 10 of the PTO Benefits Binder contains a Summary Plan Description ("SPD") of
`the Pacific Telesis Group Cash Balance Pension Plan For Salaried Employees as of July 1996.
`Except as so admitted and alleged Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 44 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`
`In answer to paragraph 45
`PTO Benefits Binder speaks for itself To the extent Plaintiffs allegations are contrary to the
`contents of the PTO Benefits Binder, Defendant denies the allegations.
`In answer to paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`the extent Plaintiffs allegations are contrary to the
`
`46.
`
`PTO Benefits Binder speaks for itself
`
`10
`ANSWER OF DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEI<Tr PLAN NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`(Case No CV 08-04058 MHPJ
`PLAINTffF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 11 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 308
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
`
`26
`
`contents of the PTG Benefits Binder, Defendant denies the allegations.
`
`D.
`
`The Applicable Provisions of the Official Plan Document: The 1996 Pacific Telesis
`Group Cash Balance Plan, Effective July 1, 1996
`
`In answer to paragraph 4 7 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that one
`47.
`of the PTG Pension Plan documents is the document entitled "Pacific Telesis Group Cash
`Balance Pension Plan for Salaried Employees," (the "PTG Pension Plan Instrument") produced in
`this action as document ATTP001578-1672. In addition, a copy of the PTG Pension Plan
`Instrument as amended through December 31, 1998, has been produced in this action as document
`ATTPOO 1673-1781. Except as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations of
`
`paragraph 4 7 of the Amended Complaint.
`In answer to paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`48.
`alleges that the PTG Pension Plan Instrument and the PTG Pension Plan SPD, individually and
`read together, explain the benefits available to Participants of the PTG Pension Plan and how the
`benefits are calculated. Except as so admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations of
`
`paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint.
`The allegations of paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint are so broad, vague
`49.
`and conclusory that Defendant cannot meaningfully respond to them, and on that basis denies
`each and every allegation. The benefits available to employees under the PTG Pension Plan are
`generally governed by all of the terms of the Plan documents, including the Plan Instrument and
`
`the Plan SPD.
`
`In answer to paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`50.
`terms of section 3.4(d) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument speak for themselves and are the best
`
`the terms.
`paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations to the extent that they are
`contrary to the terms of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument.
`In answer to paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that
`the PTG Pension Plan Instrument sets forth the Early Payment Discount which is
`
`51.
`
`11
`ANSWER OF DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`(Case No CV 08-04058 MHP)
`PLAINTIFF'S AMEJ\DED CO:'\'1PLAINT (CLASS ACTION)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 12 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 309
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
`
`26
`
`28
`
`referenced in section 3.4(d)(3)(x) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument.
`In answer to paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that,
`52.
`under section 5.2 of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument, the ATB potentially was subject to an
`early payment discount based on the Participant's age and Term of Employment. Except as so
`admitted and alleged, and to the extent the allegations of paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint
`vary from, or are qualified by, the terms of the PTG Pension Plan, Defendant denies each and
`
`every allegation contained in paragraph 52.
`In answer to paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits and
`53.
`alleges that under section 3.4(d)(3)(x) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument, in order for a rehired
`employee to have his or her ATB monthly annuity adjusted to reflect the employee's age and
`Term of Employment at the employee's next tem1ination of employment, the employee's service
`had to be "bridged" under section 7.4(a) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument. Except as so
`admitted and alleged, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the Amended
`Complaint, and specifically denies that under the terms of section 3.4(d)(3)(x) rehired employees
`such as Plaintiff who cashed out their prior ATB benefit in a lump sum as opposed to taking it in
`the form of a monthly annuity were entitled to an adjusted or "redetermined" ATB. Section 3.4(a)
`of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument and section 10-30 of the PTG Pension Plan SPD clearly
`
`provide that they are not so entitled.
`In answer to paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`54.
`terms of section 7.4 of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument speak for themselves and are the best
`evidence of the terms. Except as so admitted and alleged Defendant denies the allegations of
`paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations to the extent that they are
`contrary to the terms of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument.
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint and
`specifically denies that the provisions of section 3.4(d)(3)(x) of the PTG Pension Plan applies to
`employees who cashed out their prior ATB in the form of a lump sum, or that the provisions of
`section 3.4(d)(3)(x) call for an adjusted or redetermined lump sum ATB, both of which the
`
`12
`ANSWER OF DEFENDANT AT&T PENSION BENEJ.'IT PLAN NONBARGAINED PROGRAM TO
`PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (CLASS ACTION) (Case No CV 08-04058 MIIP)
`
`444759
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 136 Filed 04/28/10 Page 13 of 33Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 310
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`allegations of paragraph 55 implicitly assume, and both of which are contradicted by section
`
`3.4(a) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument and section 10-30 of the PTG Pension Plan SPD.
`
`56.
`
`In answer to paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the
`
`terms of section 3.13 of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument speak for themselves. Except as so
`
`averred, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 56, and specifically denies that the
`
`provisions of section 3.4(d)(3)(x) of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument applies to employees who
`
`cashed out their prior A TB in the form of a lump sum, or that the provisions of section
`
`3.4(d)(3)(x) call for an adjusted or redetermined lump sum ATB, both of which paragraph 56
`
`implicitly assume, and both of which are contradicted by section 3.4(a) of the PTG Pension Plan
`
`Instrument and section 10-30 of the PTG Pension Plan SPD. In further response to paragraph 56,
`
`Defendant avers that section 3.13 of the PTG Pension Plan Instrument sets forth the manner in
`
`12 which a rehired employee's benefit will be calculated and offset for any prior cashouts. It does
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`not provide or imply that an employee who previously took his or her A TB as a lump sum
`
`payment will have that lump sum payment adjusted or redetermined under section 3.4(d)(3)(x).
`
`57.
`
`In answer to paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant repeats and
`
`realleges its de