Class Action: NBA Retirement Pension Plan Discrepancies Cost Former Players Hundreds of Thousands
Last Updated on May 8, 2018
Abdul-Aziz v. National Basketball Association Players’ Pension Plan
Filed: November 15, 2017 ◆§ 1:17-cv-08901
A former NBA player claims the league pension plan's offer of 'actuarial equivalents' does not equal benefits offered through its 'normal retirement pension.'
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in New York on behalf of all former participants in the National Basketball Association Players’ Pension Plan who elected to receive a form of retirement pension that terminated prior to a player or his spouse’s death. The 27-page lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that the Plan violates two sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974—ERISA.
The NBA’s retirement pension plan went into effect in 1969, the lawsuit explains, and was amended in 1970 to guarantee retired players a “Normal Retirement Pension,” i.e. benefits paid monthly up to and including the month in which a player dies. In addition to its standard benefits, the case continues, the “1970 Plan” offered an “actuarial equivalent” that included several options that terminate prior to a player’s death, including a single lump sum payment, installments of fixed amounts, and installments offered for a fixed period. The complaint says the 1970 Plan defined actuarial equivalents as “a benefit of equivalent value to a Life Annuity” when calculated on the basis of actuarial assumptions, such as, the suit lists, percent interest and mortality tables defined by the Plan.
Retired NBA players, the case continues, have the choice of electing to receive a Normal Retirement Pension, payable as a Life Annuity, or an Actuarial Equivalent, supposedly payable as a benefit of equal value to the Life Annuity. The plaintiff, who played in the NBA from 1968 through 1978 and has eight years of credited service toward the retirement plan, claims the defendant Plan violates federal law, costing former players and their families hundreds of thousands of dollars in rightful benefits. Allegedly, the actuarial benefits offered to retired players do not provide them with a benefit of financially equivalent value when compared to a normal retirement pension.
From the lawsuit:
“The financial inequity between a Normal Retirement Pension and certain Actuarial Equivalents results from the Plan failing to pay cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for Actuarial Equivalents (i.e., Lump Sum, Fixed Amount, and Fixed Period) that terminated prior to the player or spouse’s death.
The financial difference between the Normal Retirement Pension and the Actuarial Equivalent elected by the plaintiff and his spouse in August 1991 ultimately cost their family hundreds of thousands of dollars in loss of important retirement benefits.”
The full complaint can be read below.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Did you know there's usually nothing you need to do to join, sign up for, or add your name to new class action lawsuits when they're initially filed?
Read more here: How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.