Source: https://blockesq.com/attorneys/vincent-cheng/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:12:31+00:00

Document:
Vincent Cheng is an associate at the firm and a member of the Employee Benefits Group and Veterans/Servicemember Rights Group.
Since graduating from law school, Mr. Cheng has focused his work on advocating for the rights of employees and retirees and of veterans and servicemembers. Prior to joining Block & Leviton, he had over 8 years of experience in litigating a variety of lawsuits on behalf of employees. These lawsuits included cases brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) involving breach of fiduciary duty and benefit denial claims and cases brought under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) involving veterans’ employment rights and benefits, as well as employment cases involving unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code and race and gender discrimination under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Carlson v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan, No. 13-cv-02635 (N.D. Ill.): represent a putative class of employees who were laid off from Northrop Grumman alleging that they improperly denied cash severance under the severance Plan.
Aguilar v. Melkonian Enterprises, Inc., No. 05-cv-00032 (E.D. Cal.): represented a class of participants in two pension plans alleging that the fiduciaries failed to prudently invest the plan assets; obtained a settlement that provided for recovery of more than 85% of the losses to the plans.
Simpson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, No. C05-000225 (N.D. Cal.): represented disabled employee-participants alleging that FFIC terminated them in violation of ERISA § 510 to prevent them from continuing to receive medical benefits; obtained a settlement that provided for restoration of their right to benefits for a period of years and reimbursement of past medical expenses.
Paulsen v. CNF Inc., No. C 03-3960 (N.D. Cal.): represented a group of employees alleging that the fiduciaries breached their duties under ERISA in connection with the spinoff of a division of CNF, and that the CNF pension plan’s actuary breached its duty of care under state law in valuing the plan liabilities to be transferred at spinoff and certifying post-spinoff that the new plan was adequately funded.
Hurlic v. Southern California Gas Company, No. 05-5027 (C.D. Cal.): represented a group of participants alleging that the pension benefit accrual formula under SCGC’s cash balance defined benefit plan violated ERISA’s prohibition against age discrimination and ERISA’s anti-back-loading rules.
Allman v. American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Benefit Program Variable Income Plan, No. 14-cv-10138 (D. Mass.), where American Airlines allegedly violated USERRA and ERISA by making deficient pension contributions for a class of pilots who took military leave.
Bush v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, No. 14-cv-01507 (N.D. Cal.), where Liberty Life agreed to return significant portions of reduced long-term disability benefits to veteran-claimants and not to reduce future benefits absent state approval.
Munoz v. InGenesis STGi Partners, LLC, No. 14-cv-1547 (S.D. Cal.), a USERRA discrimination and failure-to-reemploy case where we obtained through settlement the full amount of the plaintiff’s lost pay and benefits plus interest and a sizable amount of liquidated damages.
Gutierrez v. Schmid Insulation Contractors, Inc., No. 07-cv-5852 (C.D. Cal.), a wage-and-hour class action alleging that the defendants failed to pay for travel time from offices to construction sites, provide meal and rest breaks, and pay overtime to a group of Spanish-speaking, immigrant workers.
Wynne v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc., 06-cv-03153 (N.D. Cal.), a Title VII and FEHA class action alleging race discrimination in hiring and job assignments, which resulted in a consent decree through settlement that provided for significant injunctive relief to promote equal employment opportunity in defendants’ employment practices.
Holloway v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 05-5056 (N.D. Cal.), a Title VII and FEHA class action alleging race and gender discrimination by Best Buy in hiring, promotions, and job assignments.
Author, “National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan: A Problematic Formulation of the Continuing Violation Theory,” California Law Review (October 2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 510
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.