HARTFORD, Conn.–A federal judge has ruled in favor a former credit union CEO who had claimed the CU has refused to fully pay out his retirement benefits after he was abruptly fired over his Parkinson's disease diagnosis.
In the case, the former CEO, David Purcell, alleged that the $355-million Scient Federal Credit Union in Groton, Conn. and its Split Dollar Agreement Plan had violated the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) by claiming he was not 100% vested.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver in the case shows Purcell, who served as CEO from 2015-2020, enrolled in the retirement plan effective in 2018, and that the plan allowed for Purcell to access the annual retirement cap upon reaching retirement age on May 15, 2025, unless terminated, in which case he could access the cap as of the date of termination.
But the plan also included provisions related to disabilities.
Disclosure Made
The judge’s ruling notes that in September of 2017 Purcell disclosed on an insurance policy funded by the plan that he suffered from Parkinson’s disease, a copy of which was provided to the credit union and the plan.
“On March 16, 2020, SFCU informed Purcell that it was terminating him, stating ‘We are going in a different direction…it was a tough decision.’ When Purcell inquired about his benefits under the Plan, SFCU informed him that he was vested in one-third of the annual borrowing cap,” the ruling reads. “The (Social Security Administration) later determined that Purcell was disabled as of the date of his termination.”
Among other findings, the court ruled that Purcell was discharged under circumstances that give rise to an interference of discriminatory intent, and that the administrative record is “conclusive that, leading up to the termination, plaintiff remained a valuable employee despite his worsening neurocognitive symptoms.”
Record is ‘Conclusive’
In addition, the court said the administrative record is also conclusive that the “timing of Plaintiff’s discharge resulted in substantial cost savings for Defendants.”
“Because the Plaintiff was discharged months before he was due to be 67% vested, double the amount he was currently vested, the timing of Plaintiff’s discharge is sufficient to carry Plaintiff’s de minimis burden to show discriminatory intent.”
The court also said the credit union had filed to “satisfy the burden of producing admissible evidence sufficient to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory explanation for Plaintiff’s termination.”
For the reasons described above, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement is GRANTED. The denial of Plaintiff’s application for benefits is VACATED,” wrote Judge Oliver