Document text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO.:
RICHARD BONOMO, MICHELLE )
HERNANDEZ and MONA PIRES , )
Plaintiff s, )
v. )
FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, )
a/k/a FM GLOBAL, )
Defendant . )
_________________________________________ )
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
The plaintiff s, Richard Bonomo (“ Mr. Bonomo ”), Michelle Hernandez (“ Ms.
Hernandez ”) and Mona Pir es (“Ms. Pire s”) (together sometimes “ plaintiffs” ) were entitled to
severance benefits from the defendant, Factory Mutual Insurance Company a/k/a FM Global
(“FM Global”) , pursuant to the Factory Mutual Insurance Company and Its Participati ng
Affiliates Severance Pay Plan (“P lan”) (Exhibit A hereto) - when plaintiffs ’ employment was
terminated by FM Global on December 31, 2018 (“Termination Date”). After plaintiffs’
termination, FM Global fa iled to pay plaintiffs such severanc e benefits as they have paid
previous FM employees who worked at the credit union or other division or wholly owned
subsidiary of FM Global .
Plaintiffs then properly appeal ed under the terms of the Plan and FM Global denied the
appeals inc luding via a Final Decision Letter (infra ), in July 2019 , and this lawsuit ensued. The
Company has not o nly violated of the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”), but breached its respective contract s with each of plaintiffs and the imbedded
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 8
2
JURISDICTION
This Court has j urisdiction over this matter because t he severance policy was part of the
employee benefit plan, the Plan, and it is governed by the Employment Retir ement Income and
Securi ty Act of 197 4 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Under ERISA, a beneficiary has the
right to seek rev iew of an insurer's decision to deny a claim for benefits in this Court. See 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Richa rd Bonomo, is an indivi dual residing at, 49 Hodges Ave 2R , Quincy,
Norfolk County , Massachusetts , and worked for FM Global from September 2007 to
December 31, 2018 .
2. Plaintiff, Michelle Hernandez, is an individual residing at , 64 Laurelwood Drive Unit A ,
Hope dale of Worchester Coun ty, Massachus etts, and worked for FM Global from
October 2014 to December 31, 2018.
3. Plaintiff, Mona Pires , is an individual residing at, 88 Plain Street , Fall River, Bristol
County, Massachusetts , and worked for FM Global from April 2 015 to December 31,
2018.
4. Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company, a/k/a FM Global (“FM Global), is a
corporation headquarter ed in Rhode Island , and doing business globally , and in
Massachusetts at all times relevant in Waltham , MA and Norwood, MA and at the
Chadwick Federal Credit U nion (infra ) facility, in Johnston, RI and in Norwood MA .
5. Chadwick Federal Cred it Union (“Chadwick”) was a credit union banking facility doing
business at all times re levant at 1151 Boston Providence Turnpike Norwood , MA , and Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 8
3
270 C entral Avenue Johnston RI 02919 ; it later merged with City of Boston Credit
Union. (infra ).
6. Chadwick wa s ‘sponsored’ [FM Global’ s self -designated term] by FM Global for at least
half a century, and as such, and in accordance with that relationship and the course of
conduct as undertaken and implemented , from approximately May 1968 to December 31,
2018 , certain persons working at th e Chadwick facility , including plaintiffs , received
their pay, benefits , and offer of employment, from FM Global (not from Chadw ick);
moreover plaintif fs each engag ed in a job interview process with, and were subject to and
adhered to corporate policies of , FM Global . Again, in accordance with this
‘sponsorship ,’ all plaintiffs received their pay and benefits from FM Global while
working at the Chadwick facility , until December 31, 2018 .
7. Chadwick was not a part of, or owned by, or a division or subsidiary or similar , of FM
Global.
8. Chadwick Federal Credit Union was a federal credit union chartered under the Federal
Credit Union Ac t and was its own tax e ntity insured by the federal government.
FACTS
9. At all times relevant until Decem ber 31, 2018, all the pla intiffs performed their work for
FM Global at the Chadwick location and were paid their compensation for such work and
received benefits in connection with same, f rom FM Global, again pursuant to the
arrangement by which the Chadw ick facility was effectiv ely staffed by FM Global
(‘sponsored’ ). Plaintiffs performed their duties fully and satisfact orily and were
responsible to FM Global ’s Human Resources Department . Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 3 of 8
4
10. On or about February 9, 2018, Kevin Ingham CFO of FM Global advise d the plaintiffs
that their employment wit h FM Global would end on December 31, 2018. Further, at the
time that FM Global announced plaintiffs’ severance date of Decembe r 31, 2018 , there
was n o plan in pla ce concerning, nor identification by FM Global (or otherwise), of any
entity for plaintiffs ’ successive employment as of January 1, 2019.
11. Further as at the date of the FM Global announcement of plaintiffs’ Termination D ate (of
December 31, 20 18), none of plaintiffs had any successive employment for thems elves in
place as to where they could work starting January 1, 2019 , after they were laid off by
FM Global.
12. Instead, largely through the efforts of senior executives wor king at the Chadwick
location, inclu ding plaintiff, Mr. Bonomo, a merger of Chadwick w ith City of Boston
Credit Union (“City Cre dit”), was effected, which initial merger intention was signed on
or about July 28, 2018 with final regulatory approval (including by NCUA,
Massachus etts Division o f Banks and Rhode Island Division of Banks) grante d on
October 2, 2018 and the final merger agreement was signed on January 1, 2019.
(“Chadwick Merger”). FM Global was not a party to the merger.
13. As a result of the Chadwick Merger , the FM Global employe es to be terminated at
December 31, 2018 by FM Global , including plaintiffs , were able to be em ployed in 2019
by City of Boston Credit Union starting on January 1, 2019 .
14. Plaintiffs properly sought their severance payments under the Plan from FM Global and
FM Global denied such severance benefits to plaintif fs in writing via i) two separate
emails in December, 2018 and then again ii) in the March 2 7, 2019 letter from Gle nn E. Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 4 of 8
5
King to Mr. Bonomo (“King Denial Letter ”) and finally in the July 25, 2019 letter from
Ms. Fidler (“Final Decision Denial ”).
15. In accor dance with the Plan’s terms , plaintiffs ap pealed the adv erse decisions under th e
Plan ( See, Claims Procedure under the Plan) and fully exhauste d plaintiffs’ remedies
under the Plan. See , e. g., plaintiffs’ counsel letter of May 25, 2019, appealing the Kin g
Denial Letter (“Plaintiffs’ ERISA Ap peal Letter”).
16. The Pla n is an ERISA plan and the relevant terms pro vide for severance benefits to
persons who are employees of FM Global, such as plaintiffs .
17. Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company, a/k/a FM Glob al is defined as the
“Compa ny” in the ERIS A Plan ( See, ¶ A).
18. At no time relevant was there a sale, transfer or merger [or spin -off] of FM Global - any
such putative events called “FM Global Reorganization.”
19. At not time relevant did FM Global undergo a “si milar corporate transa ction” to any FM
Global Reorganization.
20. At no time relevant in plaintiffs’ employment with FM Global was p laintiffs’
employment terminated from FM Global in connection with any such FM Global
Reorganization or “similar corporate trans action.”
21. Further, at n o time were any of p laintiffs offered employment by a successor employer, to
wit, a successor to FM Global , because, inter alia , at no time relevant was any successor
to FM Global formed and/or extant. Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 5 of 8
6
22. FM Global employees, other than plaintiffs, have also been terminated/ an d/or offered
options to accept a new job with a new company (‘sponsored’ or similar by defendant)
and were duly paid severance benefits under the Plan (“ FM Global Paid Employees ”), in
sharp contrast to the treatmen t given to the plaintif fs by defendant – to wit, defendant
denied plaintiffs’ severance benefits. FM Global Paid Employees paid such severance,
were similarly situated to plaintiffs in relevant aspects to the Plan, yet t he FM G lobal
Paid Empl oyees were pa id severa nce and plaint iffs were not.
23. The payments to FM Global Paid Employees (again, similarly situated to plaintiffs) for
severance benefits were made by defendant based on various justifications provided by
the defendant, including the so -called AGIL ITY and/or AGILE p rogram; further
defendan t arranged for cafeteria workers to be paid severance benefits for time working
for FM Globa l and arranged for such cafeteria workers to immediately obtain jobs at a
successor entity, Next Dine, after their tenure at FM Global ended , due t o the closure of
the cafeteria facilities. FM Global Paid Employees ended their work at FM Global and
begin working at a sponsored/ successor entity immediately after ending employment
with FM Global. To wit, persons who were p revious FM Global cafeteria employees
were pa id severance by FM Global and FM G lobal was aware, and allo wed, FM Global
Paid Employe es to obtain employment with the successor company, Next Dine (which
company FM Global had arrange d to take over the cafeteria o perations in Waltham and
Norwood , MA ) and yet the FM Global Paid Employees were still paid severance from
FM Global.
24. In general, in response to plaintiff s’ requests for se verance benefits, defendant claimed
that plaintif fs’ ERISA claims fail because they a llege the re was a ‘sale or merger or Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 6 of 8
7
similar corporate transaction ’ under the P lans’ terms. As noted, the facts are contrary and
there was not sale or merger or similar corpo rate transa ction of the Company in the Plan,
FM Global .
COUNT I
(Breach of Contr act/Violation of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
25. Plaintiff s reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the
paragra phs above.
26. Defe ndant breached their ag reement s with each of p laintiff s, including their respective
employment -at-will employment agreement s, violati ng the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing inherent in every contract, misrepresenting that the plaintiffs w ould be treated
fairly in terms and co nditions of employment and by misrepresenting th e terms and
conditions of the Plan and acting to deprive plain tiffs of benefits under the Plan.
27. Defendant ’s breaches were material.
28. Defendant acted without good faith to ward each of pl aintiffs, or worse.
29. As a result of defendant ’s breaches, plaintiff s have suffered s ubstantial damages,
including but not limited to severance pay under the Plan, consequential or incidental
damages, interest, costs and legal fees.
COUNT II
Denial of ERISA Benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.
30. Plaintiff r ealleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegat ion set forth in the
paragraphs above.
31. Plaintiff s were enrolled in the Plan, are bona fide participants in the Plan and properly
are entitled to its benefit s.
32. Plaintiff s were wrongfully denied benefits under the Plan . Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 7 of 8
8
33. Plaintiff s exhausted all administrat ive remedies under the Plan .
34. As a result of the aforesaid wrongful denial of benefits, Plaintiff s are entitled to:
severance pay and benefits, all actual, consequential a nd incidental damages ; all interest
calculated on foregoing amounts sou ght at the pr evailing rate; and reasonable attorney’s
fees and other costs of th is action.
PLAINTIFFS HEREBY DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL CLAIMS.
WHEREFORE , the pla intiffs pray th at the Court grant the following relief:
I. Enter judgment for the plaint iffs awarding da mages as set forth in Counts I – II;
II. Award th e plaintiff interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and
III. Provide such other and further relief as t he Court deems appropriate.
Dated: October 26, 2021 Respect fully submitted,
For the Plaintiffs,
Rich ard Bonomo, Michelle Hernandez and Mona Pires,
By their attorneys,
/s/ William J. Royal Jr .
William J. Royal Jr . BBO # 432220
Royal Law Firm
27 Mica Lan e
Wellesley, MA
888-600-5133
[email protected]
/s/ Lisa S. Carlson
Lisa S. Carlson BBO#668824
Mass Bay Law Associates
PO Box 1020
Lakeville, MA 02347
(888) 333-5133
[email protected] Case 1:21-cv-11750 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 8 of 8