2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-29-2009 

# Ge ne Rome ro v

. All s t at e C orp P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4460

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ge ne Rome r o v

. All s t at e C orp " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 921. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/921NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N os . 07- 4460, 07- 4461, 08- 1122

__________ GE NE R. RO M E RO ; J AM E S T . BE VE R; RO GE R T . BO YD ** ; R IC H A R D A . C A R R IE R ; P A U L R . C O B B ; C R A IG K . C R E A S E ; S Y L V IA C R E W S -K E L L Y ; D W IG H T E N G L IS H ; D O U G L A S F . G A F N E R , II * ; RO NAL D W. HAR P E R; M I CH AE L P . KE AR NE Y; T HOMAS A. KE AR NE Y; L A R R Y H . L A N K F O R D , S R .; D A V ID C . L A W S O N ; N A T H A N R . L IT T L E JO H N , II; R E B E C C A R . M A S L O W S K I; C R A IG A . M IL L IS O N ; JA M E S E . M O O R E H E A D ; C H R IS T O P H E R L . P E R K IN S ; R IC H A R D E . P E T E R S O N ; JA M E S P . P IL C H A K ; PA U L A R E IN E R IO ** ; P A U L L . S H IR L E Y ; D O N A L D L . T R G O V IC H ; R IC H A R D S . W A N D N E R ; T IM O T H Y W E IS M A N ; A N T H O N Y T . W IK T O R ; JO H N W . W IT T M A N ; RA L P H J . WOLV E RT ON; A ppel l ant s N o. 07- 4460 v. A L L S T A T E IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y ; E D W A R D M . L ID D Y , In H is C a p a c ity as Pr es i dent , C hai r m an and Chi ef Execut i ve O ffi cerof the A l l s t at e C orpor at i on a n d Al l s t a t e I n s u r a n c e Co mp a n y ; T HE AL L S T AT E CO RP OR AT I ON

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 03894)

______ E QUAL E M P L OYMENT OP P OR T UNI T Y C OM M I S S I ON v. AL L S T AT E I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 07042)

* Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. Pr oc. 43 [12/ 18/ 08] ** ( A m ended pe rC l erk O r derdat ed 6/ 24/ 2008)

___________________2 GE NE RO M E RO ; J AM E S T . BE VE R; RO GE R T . BO YD; RI CH AR D A . CA RRI ER; PAU L R. CO BB; CRA I G K . CREA SE; SY L V I A C R E W S- K E L L Y ; D W I G H T F. E N G L I SH ; D O U G L A S F. G A FN E R , I I *; RO NAL D W. HAR P E R; M I CH AE L P . KE AR NE Y; T HOMAS A. KE AR NE Y; LARRY H. LANKFORD, S R. ; DAV I D C. LAWSON; NATHAN R. L I T T L E J OHN, I I ; RE BE CC A R . M AS L OWS KI ; CR AI G A. M I L L I S ON; J AM E S E . M OOR E HE AD; E DWARD T . M UR RA Y, I I I ; CA RO L YN L . P E NZ O; CH RI S T OP HE R L . P E RK I NS ; RI CH AR D E . P E T E RS ON; J AM E S P . P I L CH AK; P A U L A R E IN E R IO ; P A U L A M . S C H O T T ; D O N A L D L . T R G O V IC H ; R IC H A R D S . W A N D N E R ; T IM O T H Y W E IS M A N ; E R N IE P . W E N D T ; ANT HONY T . WI KT OR ; J OHN W. WI T T M AN; RA L P H J . WOLV E RT ON; A ppel l ant s N o. 07- 4461 v. T H E A L L S T A T E C O R P O R A T IO N ; A L L S T A T E IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y ; A G E N T S P E N S IO N P L A N ; A D M IN IS T R A T IV E C O M M IT T E E , I n i t s capa ci t yas A dm i ni s t r at orof the A gent s Pens i on Pl an *Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. Pr oc. 43 [12/ 18/ 08] ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 06764)

___________________ GENE R. ROM ERO; J AM ES T. BEVE R; RI CHARD A. CARRI ER; P AUL R. CO BB ; CR AI G K. CR E AS E ; S YL VI A C RE WS - KE L L Y; DWI GHT E NGL I S H; DOUGL AS F . GAF NE R, I I * ; RO NAL D W. HAR P E R; M I CH AE L P . KE AR NE Y; T HOMAS A. KE AR NE Y; L AR RY H. L ANKF OR D, S R. ; DAVI D C . L AWS ON; NAT HAN R . L I T T L E J OHN, I I ; RE BE CC A R . M AS L OWS KI ; CR AI G A. M I L L I S ON; J AM E S E . M OOR E HE AD; CH RI S T OP HE R L . P E RK I NS ; RI CH AR D E . P E T E RS ON; JA M E S P . P IL C H A K ; P A U L L . S H IR L E Y ; D O N A L D L . T R G O V IC H ; R IC H A R D S . W A N D N E R ; T IM O T H Y W E IS M A N ; A N T H O N Y T . W IK T O R ;

J OHN W. WI T T M AN; RA L P H J . WOLV E RT ON; *Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. Pr oc. 43 [12/ 18/ 08]( cont i nued)3 v. E D W A R D M . L I D D Y , I n H i s C apac i t yas Pr es i dent , C hai r m an and C hi ef Execut i ve O ffi cerof the A l l s t at e C orpor at i on and Al l s t a t e I n s u r a n c e Co mp a n y ; AL L S T AT E I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY;

T HE AL L S T AT E CO RP OR AT I ON ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 03894)

______ E QUAL E M P L OYMENT OP P OR T UNI T Y C OM M I S S I ON A ppel l antN o. 08- 1122 v. AL L S T AT E I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 07042)

___________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N os . 01- cv- 03894 01- cv- 07042 01- cv- 06764) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am

__________ A r gued M ar ch 23, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O , and JO R D A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y29, 2009)4

P e te r B u s c e m i, E s q . [ ARGUE D] M i chae l J . W i l s on, E s q. Paul A nt on Z evni k, E s q. M or gan, L ew i s & B ocki us S u ite 8 0 0 N o rth 1 1 1 1 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20004 D ani el W ol f, E s q. [07- 4461] Ro o m P H2 1 2 2 0 N S tr e e t , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20005 M i chae l D . L i eder , E s q. Spr enger& L ang 1400 E y e St r eet , N . W . , Sui t e 500 W as hi ngt on, D C 20005 T hom as W . O s bor ne, E s q. M aryE l l en Si gnor i l l e, E s q. A m er i can A s s oci at i on of R et i r ed Per s ons 6 0 1 E S tr e e t , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20049 C o u n se l fo r P la in tif

fs-Ap p e lla n ts G en e R . R o m ero ; Ja m es T . B ev er; R o g er T

. B o yd; R icha rdA . C a rrier; P a u l R . C o b b ; C ra ig K. C rea se; S ylvia C rew s-Kell

y; D w igh t E n g lish ; D o u g las F . G a

fner, II ( p u rsu a n t to R u le 43

) ; R o n a ld W

. H a rp er; Micha el P . Kea rn ey ; T h o m a s A . Kea rn ey ; L a rry H. L a n kfor d , Sr. ; D a vid C . L a w so n ; N

a tha n R . L it tlejoh n , II; R eb ec ca R . M

a slow ski; C ra ig A . Mil liso n ; Ja m es E . Mo o reh ea d; C h risto p h er L . P erk ins; R icha rdE . P eterso n ; Ja m es P . P ilch a k; P a u la R eine rio; P a u l L. Sh irl ey ; D o n a ld L . T rg o vich ; R icha rdS . W

a n dn er; T

im o thy W

eism a n ; A n tho ny T

. W ikt o r; Jo h n W

. W it tm a n ; R al ph J. W olver t on ; E dw ar d T. Mur r ay; C a ro lyn L . P e n zo ; P a u la M. Sc h o tt; E rn ie P . W

e n d t.5

P a u l D . R a m s h a w , E s q . [ ARGUE D] E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni t yC om m i s s i on R oom 5SW 18K 1 3 1 M Str e e t , N. E. W as hi ngt on, D C 20507 C ouns el f orP l ai nt i f f
-Appel l ee E qualE m

pl oym ent

O ppor t uni t

y C om m is s i on St ephani e K . D ei ger , E s q. D ani el V . J ohns , E s q. J ohn B . L angel , E s q. B a llard , S p a h r, A n d re w s & In g e rso ll 1735 M arketSt eet , 51s tFl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 R ic h a rd C . G o d f

re y , E s q . [ ARGUE D] C ather i ne L. Fi t zpatr i ck, E s q. E l i zabe th A . L ar s en, E s q. Sal l i e G . Sm y l i e, E s q. Pet erA . B el l acos a, E s q. K irk lan d & E lli s 300 N or th L aSal l l e St r eet , Sui t e 2400 C hi cago, I L 60654 K ather i ne M . K at chen, E s q. A k in , G u m p , S tra u ss , H a u e r & F e ld T w o C om m er ce Squar e, Sui t e 4100 2001 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 ( C ont i nued)6

D onal d R . L i vi ngs t on, E s q. N athan J . O l es on, E s q. A k in , G u m p , S tra u ss , H a u e r & F e ld Sui t e 400 1 3 3 3 N e w H a m p s h i r e A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20036 C ouns el f orD ef endant s -Appel l ees E dw a rdM. L idd

y , in h is c a

p a c ity a s P re sid e n t, C hai r m an and C hi ef E xec ut i ve O

f f i cerof the A ll state C o rp o ra ti o n a n d

A ll state Ins u ra n ce C o m

p a ny; A l l s tat e I ns ur ance Com

pany ; A gent s P ens i on P l an; A dm i nis tr at i ve Com m i t t ee, i n i t s capaci t y as A dm i nis tr at orof the Agent

s P ens i on P l an R ae T. V ann, E s q. E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t A d v iso ryC o u n c il N o rris, T y ss e , L a m p ley & L a k is Sui t e 400 1 5 0 1 M S tr e e t , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20005 C ouns el f orA m i ci -Appel l ees E q u a l E m

p lo y m e n t A dv iso ry C o u n c il; C ham berof

C om m er ce of

the U ni t ed Stat es

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________ P E R C U R I A M. T he p l ai nti ffs i n these three cases – w hich w e shal l refert o as R om er o I, R o m ero II, and EE OC– a l l e g e t h a tth e ywe r e h a r me d b yAl l s t a t e ’ s tr a n s i t i o n f r o m aI n R om er o I ( 07- 4460) , t he pl ai nt i ffs m ake c l ai m s forage di s cr i m i nat i on and 1 r et al i at i on undert he A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct , cl ai m s of i nt er fer ence under ERI S A § 5 1 0 , c o mmo n l a w c l a i ms f o rb r e a c h o f

c o n t r a c ta n d f

i d u c i a r yd u t y , c l a i ms r el at ed t o the s i gni ng of the r el eas e, and cl ai m s r el at ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s handl i ng of th e litig a tio n . I n R o m ero II

(07 -44 6 1 ), the p lai n ti ff s all eg e v iolati o n s o f E R IS A § 2 0 4 (g)(2 ), w hi ch pr ohi bi t s pl an amendm ent s t hatr educe orel i m i nat e al r eady - acc rued bene fi t s , and s e e k e q u ita b le re lie f

f o r A lls ta te ’s a lle g e d b re a c h o f f id u c ia ry d u ty u n d e r E R IS A § 4 0 4 . I n EE OC( 08- 1122) , t he age ncycl ai m s thatA l l s t at e r et al i at ed aga i ns tthe pl ai nt i ffs i n vi ol at i on of the A D E A . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons ol i dat ed R om er o I and EE OCi n 2002. B eca us e w e w r i t e her e onl yforthe part i es , w e w i l l notful l ydes cr i be the fa ctual 2 back groun d o r pr oced ural his t oryof these three cases. 7 sy ste m w h e re in su ra n c e a g e n ts w e re c o m p a n ye m p lo y e e s to a sy ste m w h e re th e a g e n ts w er e i ndepende ntcontr act or s , and byA l l s t at e’ s al t er at i on of i t s empl oy ee r et i r ement pl an. A ft erm anyy ear s of l i t i gat i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed A l l s t at e’ s di s pos i t i ve 1 m o tio n s in a tw o -p a g e o rd e r. T h e o rd e r is c o n c lu so ryin to n e a n d c o n ten t an d sim p lyf a ils t o do j us t i ce t o t he my r i ad i s s ues befor e the court . T hi s has m ade ourabi l i t yt o carr yout o u r re v iew f

u n c tio n d if

f icu lt, in d e e d . W e w ill v a c a te th e o rd e r a n d re m a n d th e c a se s to the D istri ct C o u rt . G iven w h at w e p erc eive to b e the d isi n cli n ati o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt t o g i v e f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e p r o c e d u r a l a n d s u b s t a n t i v e n u a n c e s o f th o s e c a s e s , we w i l l di r ectt hatt he mat t erbe r eas s i gned.

I . Backg r ound 2 I n the cour s e of A l l s t at e’ s t r ans i t i on fr om an empl oy ee- agentpr ogr am t o an i ndepende nt - contr act orpr ogr am, i n 2000, al l empl oy ee a gent s oper at i ng underthe ea r l i erO ne of the or i gi nal pl ai nt i ffs , D ougl as G afne r , di d nots i gn the r el eas e. T he part i es 3 advi s ed us ator al ar gum entt hatM r . G afne r ’ s es t at e had s ett l ed i t s cl ai m s w i t h A l l s t at e. ( M ar . 23, 2009, O r al A r g. T r . 15. ) T her efor e, al l of the r emai ni ng pl ai nt i ffs ar e s i gner s of the r el eas e. 8 agr eement s know n as R 830 and R 1500 contr act s w er e t erm i nat ed. T heyw er e gi ven four pos t - t erm i nat i on opt i ons , t he fi r s tt hr ee of w hi ch i nvol ved the s i gni ng of a r el eas e that barr ed futur e cl ai m s agai ns tA l l s t at e. U nderthe opt i ons thatr equi r ed the s i gni ng of the r el eas e, eac h empl oy ee w oul d: 1) become an i ndepende ntcontr act or ; or2) become an i ndepende ntcontr act ort empora r i l yand then s el l the book of bus i nes s t o an A l l s t at eappr oved buy er ; or3) l eave A l l s t at e and r ece i ve a f ul l y ear ’ s s al aryas s ever ance pay . T he four th opt i on, and the onl yone thatdi d notr equi r e s i gni ng of the r el eas e, w as t o r ece i ve 13 w eeks ’ s al aryas s ever ance . V i r tual l yal l of the el i gi bl e empl oy ee a gent s t ook one of the fi r s tt hr ee opt i ons and s i gned the r el eas e. A l l of the curr entpl ai nt i ffs s i gned the r el eas e. 3 In 1 9 9 1 , b e f

o re th e c o n v e rsio n to a n a ll-ind e p e n d e n t-c o n tra c to r w o rk f o rc e , A llstate re tro a c tiv e lya m e n d e d its p e n sio n p lan . A llstate sa y s th a t itm a d e th e se a m e n d m e n ts in re sp o n se to th e T a x R e f o rm A c t o f

1 9 8 6 , w h ich re q u ire d c o m p a n ies to a d o p t b e n e f its form ul as thatdi d notdi s cr i m i nat e i n favorof hi ghl ycompensa t ed empl oy ees . T he am en d m en ts i n clud ed ch an g es to the w ayA ll stat e c alcu lat ed ea rl yreti rem en t ben ef it s. In 1994, A l l s t at e r e- adopt ed i t s 1991 pl an amendm ent s , s om e of w hi ch w er e the s ubj ectof l i t i gat i on att hatt i m e i n Scot tv. A dm i n. C om m . of the Al l s tat e Agent

s P ens i on P l an , N o.I n Isb e ll , tw o f o rm e r A llstate e m p lo y e e a g e n ts a lleg e d v io latio n s o f th e A D E A , T itl e 4 V I I , t he A D A , and ER I SA , as w el l as r et al i at i on and unl aw ful t erm i nat i on cl ai m s . O ne of the pl ai nt i ffs , Schnei der , had s i gned the r el eas e; the other , I s bel l , had not . T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Seventh C i r cui thel d t hatther e had be en no unl aw ful r et al i at i on undert he A D E A , A D A , T i t l e V I I , orE R I SA , and thatA l l s t at e had not unl aw ful l ydi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tt he t erm i nat ed empl oy ee a gent s i n vi ol at i on of the A D E A . T he courtal s o hel d t hatA l l s t at e had notvi ol at ed ER I SA w hen i tel i m i nat ed the em ploy ee age nts ’ posi t i on s for a l egit i m at e, no nd i scr i m i natoryreas on , and that the rel ease w as “an e ffe ct i ve af

fi r m at i ve def

ens e” t o cl ai m s r ai s ed underthe s t atut es and doctr i nes named i n i t . 418 F. 3d at797. 9 93- 1419, 1995 W L 661096 ( M . D . Fl a. Sept . 15, 1995) , and adopt ed a ne w amendm ent c h a n g in g e lig ib ility f

o r e a rl yre tir e m e n t b e n e f its . T he thr ee c as es on appea l w er e fi l ed i n 2001. O verthe cour s e of the s ubs equent eigh t y ea rs, there h av e b ee n n u m ero u s m o ti o n s to d ism iss, m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , m ot i ons t o compel , and mot i ons forr econs i der at i on, as w el l as a 2004 decl ar at or yj udgm entt hatt he r el eas es w er e voi dabl e, and an a ppeal t o ourcour tand a r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n R o m ero II. O n M ar ch 21, 2007, aft ert he pl ai nt i ffs had as ked C hi ef J udge B art l e t o r eas s i gn the ca s es beca us e of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ongoi ng fai l ur e t o acton pendi ng m ot i ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or ders t at i ng i t s i nt entt o gr antA l l s t at e’ s out s t andi ng m ot i ons ( fordi s m i s s al i n R o m ero II and fors um m aryj udgm enti n R om er o I / EE OC ) bas ed on s ever al othercas es t hatt he courts ai d had al r eadycons i der ed and rul ed on the tr ans act i ons a t is s u e , I

s bel lv. A l l

s tat e I ns . C o. , 4 1 8 F . 3 d 7 8 8 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), Sc o t tv . A dmi n . Co mm. 4I n Sc o tt , the U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E lev e n th C irc u it d e a lt w ith 5 amendm ent s t o A l l s t at e’ s r et i r ementpl an made i n N ovemberof 1991. T he pl ai nt i ffs al l eged thatA l l s t at e had f ai l ed t o compl yw i t h E R I SA § 204( h) ’ s not i ce pr ovi s i ons w hen i tr etr oact i vel yamended i t s pl an t o compl yw i t h t he Tax R eform A ctof 1986, and that ther efor e the amendm ent s w er e i neff ect i ve. T he courtconcl uded thatE R I SA ’ s not i ce r equi r ementw as s at i s fi ed and thatthe pl an amendm ent s adopt ed on N ovember15, 1991, coul d be r etr oact i ve t o J anuary1, 1989. 113 F. 3d at1201. T he Sw a in pl ai nt i ffs al s o obj ect ed t o A l l s t at e’ s pens i on pl an amendm ent s . T he 6 U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f F lo rid a h e ld th a t Sc o tt

barr ed the p lain tiff s’ c laim s a s to re tro a c tiv ity , b e c a u se th e sa m e c laim c o u ld h a v e b e e n b ro u g h t in Sc o tt and the i nt er es t s of the Sc o tt and Sw a in pl ai nt i ffs w er e s o cl os el yal i gned thatthe Sc o tt pl ai nt i ffs w er e vi r tual r epr es ent at i ves of the Sw a in pl ai nt i ffs . T he courtal l ow ed cl ai m s thatA l l s t at e had made mi s r epr es ent at i ons t o t he pl ai nt i ffs t o go forw ar d. ( J oi nt A p p . 5 5 2 5 -2 7 .) 10 of the Al l s tat e Agent

s P ens i on P l an , 113 F. 3d 1193 ( 11t h C i r . 1997) , and Sw ai n v. 5 A l l s tat e I ns . C o. , N o. 96- 0998 ( S. D . Fl a. J an. 22, 1999) . T he courtal s o advi s ed the 6 part i es thati tw as r ethi nki ng i t s 2004 rul i ng thatthe r el eas es w er e voi dabl e, and bel i eved i tw as i n err orand s houl d be vac at ed. I tgave the part i es 20 day s t o fi l e addi t i onal m emora nda. T he pl ai nt i ffs r es ponded t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der , ar gui ng, i n par t , t hat the r el eas es w er e partof an i l l egal s cheme, thatthei rexec ut i on w as notknow i ng or vol unt ary , and thatt heyw er e uncons ci onabl e. T he pl ai nt i ffs al s o pr ot es t ed thattheyhad n o t h a d th e o p p o rt u n ity f o r d is c o v e ry b e y o n d a b ri e f p e ri o d o f

c la s s d is c o v e ry. O n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istric t C o u rt issu e d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g A llstate ’s m o tio n to di s m i s s i n R o m ero II

and i t s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti n R o me r o I / EE OC . T he cour ts ai d t hat“fort he r eas ons s t at ed i n” Sc o tt and Sw a in , the a m en d m en ts t o A ll stat e’s pens i on pl an ati s s ue i n R o m ero II w er e val i dl yadopt ed and e ffe ct i ve. I tal s o s t at ed thatT he part i es di s put e w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on overthes e appe al s , s i nce the D i s tr i ct 7 C our tneveri s s ued a s epar at e fi nal j udgm ent . T he pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatw e do have juri sd ict ion , b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er left n o issue u n reso lved an d w as th ere fo re f in a l. A llstate a rg u e s th a t w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n b e c a u se th e c o u rt d id n o t co m p ly w ith F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 8 , w h ic h re q u ir e s th a t ju d g m e n t b e e n te re d in a s e p a ra te d o c u m e n t. W h ile w e f

in d it p u z z lin g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t en ter a se p a ra te ju d g m e n t, i t is appar entthatt he courtl eftno i s s ues unr es ol ved: i tgr ant ed ordeni ed al l of the out s t andi ng m ot i ons befor e i t , and the part i es pr ocee ded as i f j udgm enthad bee n ent er ed, compl y i ng w i t h al l deadl i nes . T he pl ai nt i ffs w ai t ed more than 150 day s aft erthe D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or derw as ent er ed i n t he docke tbefor e cons i der i ng j udgm entt o be ent er ed and fi l i ng thei rnot i ce of

appea l , i n compl i ance w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) and 4 (a )( 7 )( A )( ii) . T h u s , w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . See A lvor dP olk, I nc. v. F. Schum acher& Co. , 37 F. 3d 996, 1006 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( not i ng thatt he “di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fai l ur e t o ent erj udgm enti n acc or dance w i t h t he di ct at es of R ul e 58 appea r s t o s t em from over s i ght ” and ther efor e “c om m on- s ens e” appl i cat i on of the R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, as encour aged bythe Supr eme C our ti n B a n ke rs T ru st C o . v. Ma llis , 4 3 5 U .S . 3 8 1 , 3 8 5 -8 6 (1 9 7 8 ), w a rr a n te d e x e rc is e o f a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n ). 11 Isb e ll“w arr ant s t he conc l us i on t hatpl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s of ER I SA vi ol at i ons , age d iscri m ination , an d retali ati o n m u st fail . ” (Jo int A p p . 1 3 . ) T h e c o u rto rde red that, “[ t] o the e x tent that this C o u rt ’s O rde r of M arc h 3 [sic], 20 0 4 d ec lared that the re lease s w ere voi dabl e, t hatdeci s i on w as i n err orand i s her ebyvaca t ed. A l t ernat i vel y , the val i di t yof th e re lea se s h a s b e c o m e m o o t.” (J o in t A p p . 1 3 .) T h e o rd e r g a v e th e p a rties 2 0 d a y s to s ubm i t“anyi s s ues t hatm us tbe r es ol ved bef or e the ca s e- fi l es ar e cl os ed. ” ( J oi ntA pp. 14. ) T he part i es s ubm i t t ed addi t i onal paper s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noti s s ue a f i nal ju d g m e n t. T h e p la in tif f s f ile d a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l o n N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 . 7W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of m o ti o n s to d ism iss an d m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary 8 ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . See, e. g. , B al l ent i ne v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 8 6 F . 3 d 8 0 6 , 8 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); W at s on v. A bi ngt on Tw

p. , 4 7 8 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T he EE O C focus es i t s ar gum enton t hos e A l l s t at e empl oy ees w ho di d nots i gn the 9 re lea se , a g ro u p th e E E O C c a lls “ th e h o ld o u ts.” It c laim s th a t th e h o ld o u ts’ re f u sa l to s i gn t he r el eas e i s pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yunderthe A D E A , ei t heras pr ot ect ed part i ci pat i on act i vi ty( i tar gues t hatt he r efus al t o s i gn coul d be i nt erpr et ed as a thr eatt o s ue) oras pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on conduct . T he EE O C cont ends thatA l l s t at e’ s r efus al t o al l ow the hol dout s t o become i ndepende ntcontr act oragent s i s an adve r s e ac t i on, and thatthe op t i on t o co nv ertt o indepe nd ent cont ract or st atus w as a pri vil ege o f t he em ploy ee age nts ’ empl oym ent . A l l s t at e cont es t s t he EE O C ’ s cl ai m thatthe hol dout s ’ r efus al t o s i gn the r el eas e w as pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t y , and ar gues thatthe off erof i ndepende ntcontr act ors t atus fort he t erm i nat ed empl oy ee a gent s w as notan i nci dentof empl oym ent , butr atherpartof the cons i der at i on fort he s i gni ng of the r el eas e. B eca us e ther e ar e no hol dout s among t he curr ent pl ai nti ffs, w e need no tadd res s these i ssues. 12 I I . D i s cus s i on 8 T h e p lai n ti ff

s in the se c ase s raise n u m ero u s w ay s in w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s o p inion an d co n d u ct of

the p roc ee d ing s fe ll sh o rt , inclu d ing , b u t no t l im it ed to, i ts fail u re t o e x p l a i n w h y Sc o tt , Sw a in , and Isb e lls houl d be gi ven r es j udi cat a orcol l at er al es t oppel eff ect , orcontr ol l i ng w ei ght , her e ( es peci al l ys i nce Sc o tt and Sw a in di d notcons i dert he ant i - cutback a m endment s ) ; w hyt he pl ai nt i ffs ar e notent i t l ed t o t he di s coverythey r e q u e s t e d ; w h y t h e A D E A c l a i m s a r e c o n t r o l l e d b y Isb e ll ; and how the courtr es ol ved the cou nts w hich w ere notreached in i t s opini on . W e do no tseek t o ad dress al l of these i s s ues her e: i ndeed, t he l ack of expl i cat i on bythe D i s t r i ctC our tr ender s ourr evi ew funct i on as t o t hes e as pect s of the ca s es near l yi m pos s i bl e. I n t hi s opi ni on, w e foc us on th e r e l e a s e s i g n e d b ya l l o f t h e c u r r e n tp l a i n t i f

f s . I f th e r e l e a s e i s v a l i d , i tb a r s th e c l a i ms of the pl ai nt i ffs i n R om er o I, C ountI I of R o m ero II, and EE OC . T h e p lai n ti ff s, h o w ev er, 9T he EE O C al s o r ai s es , br i efl y , an ar gum entthatA l l s t at e enga ged i n w hatthe

E E O C te rm s “ p re e m p tiv e ” re ta lia tio n a g a in s t th e s ig n e rs o f th e re le a s e . ( EE OCB r . at26- 2 8 . ) I ta r g u e s t h a tt h e s i g n e r s w e r e i n j u r e d b yb e i n g r e q u i r e d t o s i g n th e r e l e a s e s . We wi l l n o ta d d r e s s t h e E E OC ’ s p r e e mp t i v e r e t a l i a t i o n a r g u me n ti n th i s o p i n i o n . Ra t h e r , we w ill r e tu rn th e c a s e s to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r f u rt h e r r e v ie w o f

th e v a lid ity o f

th e re le a s e s . 13 di d nothave s uffi ci entdi s coveryi nt o t he fa ct s s urr oundi ng the s i gni ng of the r el eas es , or s uffi ci entt i m e t o pr oduce i t , gi ven the court ’ s about - fac e i n 2007, and ther e i s i ns uffi ci ent evi dence i n t he r ecor d, l etal one i n the r eas oni ng pr ovi ded bythe court , as t o w hethert he r el eas es w er e s i gned know i ngl yorvol unt ar i l y , orw er e uncons ci onabl e. I f the r el eas es ar e notval i d, t hen the D i s t r i ctC our tneeds t o addr es s a numberof i s s ues , namel ythe m er i t s of al l t he cl ai m s i n R o m ero II and the comm on l aw cl ai m s of br eac h of contr act and br eac h of fi duci arydut yi n R om er o I, th a ti tm u s tc o n s i d e ri n th e f i r s ti n s t a n c e . We w ill r e m a n d to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r f u rt h e r d is c o v e ry in to th e v a lid ity o f th e re le a s e s . I ti s ar guabl e that , even i f the r el eas es ar e notval i d, the ER I SA § 510 cl ai m s and the A D E A cl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed bec aus e of the pl ai nt i ffs ’ fai l ur e t o adduce evi dence s how i ng a di s put e as t o a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac ton t hos e i s s ues . H ow ever , i ti s di ffi cul ton t he r ecor d befor e us t o det erm i ne w hetherdi s coveryon t hes e cl ai m s w as s uffi ci ent . W e w i l l ther efor e r emand t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tforfur t hercons i der at i on of thes e cl ai m s . I n s o doi ng, w e cha r ge the D i s tr i ctC our tw i t h r evi ew i ng t he di s coveryr eques t s and det erm i ni ng w hetherthe pl ai nt i ffs w er e af

for ded s uffi ci entoppor tuni t yfordi s coveryon t he ER I SA § 510 and the A D E A d isc rim in a tio n a n d re talia tio n c laim s. If n o t, th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld p e rm it14

f u r th e rd i s c o v e ry a s n e c e s s a r y. A . T h e R el ease T he r el eas e thatt he pl ai nt i ffs s i gned i s verybr oad. W e r epr oduce the w ai ver l anguage her e:

I n r etur n fort he cons i der at i on thatI am re cei vi ng underthe Pr ogr am, I her ebyr el eas e, w ai ve, and for everdi s char ge A l l s t a t e I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y . . . f r o m a n y a n d a l l l i a b i l i t y, act i on s, charges, causes of ac t i on , dem and s, dam ages, ent i t l ement s orcl ai m s forr el i ef orr emuner at i on of anyki nd w hat s oever , w hetherknow n orunknow n, orw hether pr evi ous l yas s er t ed orunas s ert ed, s t at ed oruns t at ed, ar i s i ng outof, connec t ed w i t h, orr el at ed t o, m yempl oym entand/ or t he t erm i nat i on of m yempl oym entand myR 830 orR 1500 A g e n t A g re e m e n t w ith A llstate , o r m ytra n sitio n to in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to r sta tu s, in c lu d in g , b u t n o t li m ited to , all m a tters in law , in e q u ity , in c o n tra c t, or in to rt, o r p u rsu a n t to s t atut e, i ncl udi ng anycl ai m forage orot hertypes of d isc rim in a tio n p ro h ib ited u n d e r th e A g e D isc rim in a tio n in E m pl oym entA ctof 1967, T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, t he A m er i cans W i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ct , the Em pl oy ee R e tirem e n t In c o m e S e c u rityA c t (“ E R IS A ” ), th e Illino is H um an R i ght s A ct , and the W es tV i r gi ni a H um an R i ght s A ct as t hos e ac t s have be en amended, oranyot herfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal l aw oror di nance orthe comm on l aw . I fur t heragr ee t hati f anycl ai m i s m ade i n m ybehal f w i t h r es pectt o any m at t er r el eased an d w ai ved abo ve, I her ebyw ai ve an yri gh t s I m ayhave w i t h r es pectther et o and agr ee nott o t ake a ny paym ent s orot herbenef i t s fr om s uch cl ai m . I under s t and that t h i s r e l e a s e a n d wa i v e rd o e s n o ta p p l yt o a n yf u tu r e c l a i ms th a t m a ya rise a f

ter I sig n th is R e lea se o r to a n yb e n e f its to w hi ch I am ent i t l ed i n acc or dance w i t h anyA l l s t at e pl an su b jec t to E R IS A b yv irtu e o f m ye m p lo ym e n t w ith A llstate p ri o r t o m ye m p lo ym e n t te rm in a tio n d a te . (J ointA pp . 23 52 . ) Th e rel ease al so i ncludes an ack no w l edg m ent for s i gn ers :15

I a c k n o w led g e th a t: ( a) I have r ead thi s R el eas e, and I under s t and i t s l egal and bi ndi ng eff

ect . I am act i ng vol unt ar i l yand of myow n fr ee w i l l i n exec ut i ng t hi s R el eas e. (b ) I h a v e h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto se e k , an d I w a s a d v ise d in w riting to se e k th e a d v ice o f a n a tto rn e yp rio r to sig n in g th is re le a s e . . . . ( c) I w as gi ven atl eas t45 day s t o cons i derthe t erm s of the P ro g ra m , in c lu d in g th is R e le a s e , b e f o re s ig n in g it. I under s t and thatI m aym ake a n el ect i on underthe Pr ogr am befor e fort y - fi ve ( 45) day s , butI am underno obl i gat i on t o do s o . (J o in t A p p . 2 3 5 2 .) T he r el eas e al s o i ncl udes a r evoca t i on per i od: I under s t and thati f I s i gn thi s R el eas e, I can c hange mym i nd and r evoke i tw i t hi n s even da y s aft ers i gni ng i t . I under s t and t hatt he R el eas e and W ai vers etfor t h i n t he fi r s tpar agr aph a n d th e c o n sid e ra tio n a v a ilab le u n d e r th e P ro g ra m a b o v e w ill n o t b e e f f e c tiv e u n til a f

te r t h is s e v e n -d a yp e ri o d h a s e x p ir e d .

. . . I u n d e rsta n d th a t a d e c isio n to re v o k e o r re sc in d w ith in s uch per i od s houl d be s ubm i t t ed i n w r i t i ng t o m yH um an R es our ce M anage r . I f I do notr evoke w i t hi n t he s even- day p e r i o d d i s c u s s e d a b o v e . . . , th e n th e Re l e a s e wi l l b e c o me ful l yeff ect i ve. (J o in t A p p . 2 3 5 2 .)

1. T h e D i st ri ct C ou rt’ s D eci si on s R ega rd i n g the R el ease I n M ar ch of 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthe r el eas e w as voi dabl e “a tthe opt i on of the empl oy ee- agent ” bec aus e the O l derW or ker s B enef i tPr ot ect i on A ct ( “O W B PA ”) s ay s t hatno w ai veragr eementcan pr ohi bi tan i ndi vi dual fr om fi l i ng aA ft ert he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued i t s decl ar at oryj udgm ent , the pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a mot i on 10 forr econs i der at i on, ar gui ng t hatt he t ender - back r equi r ementw as i nappr opr i at e. T hey r ai s e thi s ar gum enton appea l , butw e nee d notaddr es s thati s s ue her e. 16 c h a rg e o f

d is c ri m in a tio n w ith th e E E O C . See 29 U . S. C . § 626; 29 C . F. R . § 1625. 22( I ) ( 2) (“ [ N ]o w a iv e r a g re e m e n t m a yin c lu d e a n yp ro v is io n p ro h ib itin g a n yin d iv id u a l f ro m . . . fi l i ng a cha r ge orcompl ai nt , i ncl udi ng a cha l l enge t o t he val i di t yof the w ai ver agr eement , w i t h t he EE O C . ”) T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a de cl ar at oryj udgm ental l ow i ng eac h pl ai nt i ff w ho s i gned the r el eas e t o t enderback the bene fi t s he had r ece i ved i n or der 10 t o voi d the r el eas e. I n D ece m berof 2005, A l l s t at e fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti n R om ero I / EE OC , ar gui ng, i n part , t hatt he r el eas e w as val i d. A l l s t at e ci t ed Is bell v. A l l state I ns. C o. , 418 F. 3d 788, 797 ( 7t h C i r . 2005) , a ca s e i n w hi ch tw o form erA l l s t at e empl oy ee agent s , one of w hom s i gned the r el eas e and one of w hom di d not , al l eged r et al i at i on, di s cr i m i nat i on, and unl aw ful t erm i nat i on i n connec t i on w i t h A l l s t at e’ s tr ans i t i on t o t he in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to r p ro g ra m . T h e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C i r cui thel d t hatt he r el eas e w as val i d and found no di s cr i m i nat i on orr et al i at i on undert he A D E A , t he A D A , T i t l e V II , or E R ISA . In i t s R o me r o I / EE OCs um m aryj udgm ent m ot i on, A l l s t at e al s o ar gued thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r eas oni ng thatthe cha r ge- fi l i ng ban i n the r el eas e made i tvoi dabl e w as contr aryt o ourdeci s i on i n W as tak v. Lehigh V

al l ey Health N etw ork , 342 F. 3d 281, 290 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , i n w hi ch w e uphel d t he val i di t yof a r el eas e des pi t e the fa ctt hati tcont ai ned a c har ge- fi l i ng ban. I n W as tak , w e hel d t hat2917

U . S. C . § 626( f) ( 4) m ade i tunl aw ful t o enfor ce a ban on fi l i ng an EE O C char ge, butt hat the s t atut e cont ai ned no l anguage t o s ugges tthat“the mer e pr es ence of thatcontr actual l anguage w oul d voi d an otherw i s e know i ng and vol unt aryw ai ver . ” I d. T he D i s t r i ct C our tci t ed Isb e lli n i t s J une 20, 2007, or dergr ant i ng A l l s t at e’ s di s pos i t i ve mot i ons and vaca t i ng i t s pr evi ous or dert hatt he r el eas es w er e voi dabl e.

2. T h e P arti es’ A rgu m en ts A b ou t t h e R el ease F rom the s tarto f th e li ti g ati o n , the p lai n ti ff s h av e a rgu ed that the re lease s are i nval i d. O n appea l , t heyar gue thatgenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac texi s tas t o w hethert he pl ai nt i ffs s i gned the r el eas es know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y . T he pl ai nt i ffs al l ege that A l l s t at e r efus ed t o negot i at e the r el eas e and e xer t ed extr eme economi c pr es s ur e, m ade m isre p re se n tatio n s a b o u t th e in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to r p ro g ra m , an d d id n o t co m p lyw ith d isc lo su re re q u ire m e n ts u n d e r th e O W B P A . T h e p lain tiff s a lso c o n ten d th a t th e re lea se is partof an i l l egal s cheme, and thati ti s uncons ci onabl e both pr ocedur al l yand s u b s ta n tiv e ly b e c a u s e th e re le a s e is s o f a v o ra b le to A lls ta te . P lain tiff s a rg u e , fu rth e r, th a t th e yd id n o t h a v e su f f icie n t d isc o v e ryin to th e f a c ts s ur r oundi ng t he s i gni ng of the r el eas es . Fr om M ar ch of 2004 t o D ece m berof 2005, t hey had pr ocee ded undert he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s decl ar at oryj udgm entthatthe r el eas e w as v o id a b le . W ith A lls ta te ’s m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, th e re le a s e w a s a t is s u e a g a in . T he pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a mot i on t o denyors t aythe s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on s o t hatthey coul d conductm er i t s di s covery , and theyfi l ed a Rul e 56( f) aff i davi tthatdes cr i bed the18

br i ef pe r i od t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad al l ow ed for“cl as s di s covery ” i n 2002 and 2003, the pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ul t i pl e documentr eques t s , and the mot i ons t o compel di s coverythatt he D i s tr i ctC our thad deni ed w i t houtr es ol vi ng the under l y i ng di s put es . T he courtdi d not ru le o n th e m o tio n to s ta y . A llstate c o u n ter s th a t d isc o v e ryw a s n o t li m ited to c las s is su e s, a n d p o in ts to its pr oduct i on of thr ee Fed. R . C i v. P. R ul e 30( b) ( 6) w i t nes s es and 126, 000 pages of document s pr oduced, ( i ncl udi ng 68, 000 pages fr om the Isb e lll i t i gat i on) . I tar gues that n o t o n lyw a s d isc o v e rysu f f icie n t, bu t th a t th e re lea se is v a lid : th e p lain tiff s a re w e lleduca t ed, exper i ence d bus i nes s peopl e w hos e w or k i nvol ved par s i ng contr actl anguage ; th e yh a d a lm o st s ix m o n th s to c o n sid e r sig n in g th e re lea se a n d a w e e k a f ter sig n in g in w hi ch t o r evoke; t heyw er e enc our aged t o cons ul tat t orney s befor e s i gni ng; theyr ece i ved ampl e cons i der at i on i n excha nge forthei ras s ent ; and theyexpr es s l yr epr es ent ed thatt hey s ig n e d th e re le a s e s v o lu n ta ri ly an d o f th e iro w n f

re e w ill. 3. W hy t he R el eas e i s P ot ent i al l y D i s posi t i ve I f the r el eas e i s val i d, i tbar s t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s i n R om er o I, w her e the pl ai nt i ffs al l ege vi ol at i ons of the A D E A and ER I SA , as w el l as comm on l aw cl ai m s of br eac h of contr actand br eac h of fi duci arydut y . I tw oul d al s o barthe cl ai m s i n EE OCth a t A llstate r et al i at ed aga i ns tt he pl ai nt i ffs i n vi ol at i on of the A D E A . A l l of thes e cl ai m s ar e cove r ed byt he br oad l anguage of the r el eas e, w hi ch s peci fi cal l ym ent i ons both t hos e s t atut es and comm on l aw cl ai m s . I tal s o bar s t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s i n C ountI I of R o m ero II, w h ereC ount s I and I I I of R o m ero II d ea l w ith the p lai n ti ff

s’ claim s tha t A ll stat e’s 11 a m e n d m e n t o f

its re tir e m e n t p la n v io la te s th e a n ti- c u tb a c k p ro v is io n s o f E R IS A § 2 0 4 (g ). T he langu age o f t he rel ease i s verybroad a nd cov ers E R ISA cl ai m s, otherthan tho se cl ai m s t o “anybenef

i t s t o w hi ch I am ent i t l ed i n acc or dance w i t h anyA l l s t at e pl an s ubj ect t o E R I SA byvi r tue of myempl oym entw i t h A l l s t at e pr i ort o m yempl oym entt erm i nat i on dat e. ” ( J oi ntA pp. 2352. ) W e do notdeci de w hetherC ount s I and I I I of R o m ero II f it w i thi n thi s exce pt i on. R ather , i f the r el eas e i s val i d, the D i s t r i ctC our tm us tcons i deron r emand w hethert he cl ai m s i n C ount s I and I I I of R o m ero II a re c laim s f

o r b e n e f its to w h ic h th e p la in tif

f s w e re e n title d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a n yA lls ta te E R IS A p la n . 19 the p lai n ti ff

s claim v iolati o n s o f E R IS A § 4 0 4 , w h ich p rov ides an eq u it ab le rem ed yfo r a b r e a c h o f

f i d u c i a r yd u t yc l a i m. 11 W e bel i eve the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d r eexa m i ne the val i di t yof the r el eas e, aft er al l ow i ng fur t herdi s coveryi nt o t he fa ct s s urr oundi ng the s i gni ng of the r el eas es . T he pl ai nt i ffs had a r el at i vel ys hor tper i od of cl as s di s covery , and appr oxi m at el yhal f of the document s A l l s t at e pr oduced w er e document s fr om the Isb e lll i t i gat i on. W hi l e Isb e llis cert ai nl yr el evantt o t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cas es her e, the pl ai nt i ffs ar e ent i t l ed t o di s coveryt hat i s r es pons i ve t o t hei rr eques t s r el at ed t o t he s peci fi c r el eas e- r el at ed i s s ues the pl ai nt i ffs r ai s ed w i th t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t hei rr es pons e t o i t s M ar ch 21, 2007, O r der : thatthe r el eas es w er e partof an i l l egal s cheme; thattheyw er e nots i gned know i ngl yor v o lu n ta ri ly; a n d th a t th e yw e re u n c o n s c io n a b le . I f, aft erdi s coveryand br i efi ng on thes e i s s ues , the D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i nes that the r el eas es ar e val i d, t hen the cl ai m s i n R om er o I, C ountI I of R o m ero II , and EE OCare barr ed. I f, how ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i nes thatthe r el eas es ar e notval i d, the D i s tr i ctC our tneeds t o addr es s al l of the under l y i ng cl ai m s and i s s ues thati tdi d notW e tak e this o p p o rtu n ityto reg ist er so m e c o n ce rn re g ard ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 12 rul i ng grant i ng A l l st at e’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss R o m ero II on J une 20, 2007, w hen i ts t at ed th a t “[ f ]o r th e re a so n s s tate d in th e d e c isio n o f th e E lev e n th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls in Scot tv. A dm i nis tr at i ve Com m . of the Al l s tat e Agent

s P ens i on P l an , 1 1 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), an d the later d ec isi o n o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da i n Sw ai n v. A l l s tat e I ns . C o. ( N o. 96- 0998) ( J an. 22, 1999) , the q u e s t i o n e d a me n d me n t s t o t h e Al l s t a t e P e n s i o n P l a n we r e v a l i d l ya d o p t e d a n d b e c a me e f f e c tiv e .” (J o in t A p p . 1 3 .) In th e D istric t C o u rt’s p re v io u s o rd e r, o n M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , it s ai d thatthe Sc o tt

and Sw a in deci s i ons es t abl i s h t hatthe ques t i oned amendm ent s t o t he A l l s t at e pens i on pl an w er e val i dl yadopt ed, r egar dl es s of w hetherthe othercas es “gi ve r i s e t o a re s ju d ica ta defe ns e, orw hetherthe pl ai nt i ffs i n t hos e ca s es s houl d be r egar ded as i n pr i vi tyw i t h t he pl ai nt i ffs i n ourcas es s o as t o gi ve r i s e t o col l at er al es t oppel . . . . ” (J o in t A p p . 1 2 2 4 .) W e d isa g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t Sc o tt and Sw a in ar e di s pos i t i ve of the val i di tyof the amendm ent s ati s s ue i n R o m ero II. Sc o tt addr es s ed di ffe r entpens i on pl an amendm ent s t han thos e ati s s ue her e. I tdeal tw i t h t he Soci al Secur i t ybenef i toffs et , t he benef i tacc rual r at e, and the r et i r ementage. I n R o m ero II, the amendm ent s ati s s ue dea l w i th the “be ef- up” forear l yr et i r ement( adopt ed i n 1991) , the def i ni t i on of “c r edi t ed s ervi ce” ( adopt ed i n 1994) , and the def i ni t i on of “e m pl oy ee” ( adopt ed i n 1996) . T he i s s ues ar e nott he s ame. I ndeed, t he Sc o tt pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s w er e bas ed on an a l l eged l ack of no t i c e of

t he r e du c t i on i n b e ne fi ta c c rua l s un de rthe no t i c e pr ov i s i on s of ER I SA § 204( h) , w her eas t he R o m ero II pl ai nt i ffs al l ege vi ol at i ons of ER I SA § 204( g) ( 2) , w hi ch pr ohi bi t s pl an amendm ent s t hatr educe orel i m i nat e al r eady - acc rued bene fi t s . T he pl ai nt i ffs i n Sw a in c h a llen g e d th e 1 9 9 1 A llstate p lan a m e n d m e n ts, a lleg in g th a t A llstate m i s r epr es ent ed thatt he amendm ent s w er e r equi r ed bythe Tax R eform A ctof 1986, and ar gui ng t hatt he amendm ent s coul d notbe i m pl ement ed r etr oact i vel y . T he Sw a in co u rt f o u n d th a t Sc o tt

p re c lu d e d a ll b u t th e m is re p re s e n ta tio n c la im s . Sw ai n v. A l l s tat e I ns . C o. , N o. 06- 0998 ( J an. 22, 1999) . ( J oi ntA pp. 5507- 28. ) T he cl ai m s ati s s ue i n R o m ero II go d ire c tlyto th e su b sta n c e o f th e a m e n d m e n ts a t issu e , n o t th e lo g istica l p ro p rie tyo f th e ir 20 deci de i n i t s J une 20, 2007, O r der , s om e of w hi ch w e r efe r r ed t o above, namel y , the c o mmo n l a w c l a i ms o f

b r e a c h o f

c o n t r a c ta n d b r e a c h o f

f i d u c i a r yd u t ya n d a l l th e c l a i ms i n R o m ero II. W e ar e conf i dentt haton r emand t he part i es can s pel l thes e outforthe D i s tr i ctC our t , as t heyhave done forus on appea l , i ncl udi ng the pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m that di s coveryas t o t hes e i s s ues and the r el eas e s houl d be perm i t t ed. 12enac t m ent , as i n Sc o tt and Sw a in . T her efor e, thes e ca s es ar e notconcl us i ve on thi s i s s ue.

21 F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth ab o v e, w e w il l V A C A T E the O rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt a n d R E M A N D f

o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is O p in io n .