United States Supreme Court Intervention Threatens the Retirement Security of Millions...

United States Supreme Court Intervention Threatens the Retirement Security of
Millions of Americans

LOS ANGELES, July 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Ignoring the recommendation of the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Supreme Court last week agreed to review a major
pension case, Conkright et al. v. Frommert et al., decided against the Xerox
Corporation. The lawsuit, which has gone on for 10 years, involves more than
$20 million in pension benefits. It raises legal questions about ERISA, the
1974 federal law that protects working Americans' retirement savings.

The majority of plaintiffs are represented by Peter K. Stris of Stris & Maher
LLP (www.strismaher.com), a nationally recognized ERISA expert and Supreme
Court advocate who has argued several cases before the Court. Most recently,
Stris - who is also a faculty member at Whittier Law School in Southern
California - obtained a unanimous victory in LaRue v. DeWolff Boberg &
Associates, Inc. which was described by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times
as "one of the most important rulings in years on the meaning of the federal
pension law known as ERISA."

Robert H. Jaffe, counsel for the remainder of plaintiffs and the attorney who
initiated the litigation in 1999, commented, "It is reprehensible that Xerox
has fought so long to avoid living up to a pension promise it made to entice
people to work there; indeed, several plaintiffs have died since the
litigation started." Mr. Jaffe, a 1957 graduate of Harvard College and
long-time advocate for plaintiffs, noted: "Arguing alongside attorneys for the
United States, Mr. Stris prevailed 9-0 before the Supreme Court in LaRue.
This case is no different. We enjoy the support of the United States. I look
forward to Mr. Stris's oral argument before the Court and another victory for
working Americans."

"Xerox wrongfully under-calculated the pensions of hundreds of individuals,"
noted Stris. "About that there is no dispute. The fight is over the remedy.
Xerox argues that it should decide how much money the plaintiffs get, and that
its determination must receive deference from the courts." Stris continued:
"There is no language in ERISA that supports Xerox -- which is not surprising.
The explicit purpose of the law is to protect pensioners. Xerox's argument
has no natural end: employers with vast resources could insist on endless
attempts to re-calculate pensions. And because ERISA does not permit the
recovery of punitive damages, these employers could effectively tie up
retirees everywhere in litigation forever. This litigation, which has
continued for a decade, illustrates the very point. If the Supreme Court
accepts the position urged by Xerox, no one's pension will be safe."

"Xerox's legal tactics constitute a risky strategic choice," said Brendan S.
Maher, Stris's law partner. "Given current and rightful disgust with the
Bush-era permissiveness regarding corporate malfeasance, I don't see the
public relations wisdom of being known as the company who sought the right to
a second swipe at wiping out its workers' pensions. Why would anyone want to
work at a place like that?"

The case will be argued next Term in December or January.

SOURCE Stris & Maher LLP

Peter K. Stris of Stris & Maher LLP, +1-714-444-4141, ext. 215,
peter.stris@strismaher.com