CSC Deferred Compensation Plan

Plotnick v. Computer Sciences Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Executives, et al., No. 1:15-cv-1002 (E.D. Va.)

Summary of the Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) improperly amended the CSC Deferred Compensation Plan as of December 31, 2012, to apply that amendment to plan participants who had already retired.

Summary of the Claims

The lawsuit concerns the CSC Deferred Compensation Plan, which allows participants to defer part of their income until retirement, provides for additional earnings to the deferred income until retirement, and sets a fixed payment schedule based on participant elections.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendant CSC amended the Deferred Compensation Plan effective December 31, 2012, decreasing the crediting of earnings to participant accounts and changing the terms of the Plan to allow for losses to participant accounts. The lawsuit also alleges that CSC changed the distribution schedule for benefits, causing a decrease in benefits for Class members. The lawsuit alleges that as a purported “Top Hat” plan under ERISA, the amendment does not properly apply to participants who have retired and already completed their service to the company.

The lawsuit seeks to require CSC and the Plan to provide benefits to the Class based on the terms of the Plan as of the date they retired (i.e. prior to the Amendment) and to require Defendants to disgorge any profits gained as a result of the amendment.

Class Action Allegations

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of the following persons:

Participants in the Key Executive Plan who retired as of December 31, 2012, had elected to receive distributions of deferred income during retirement in installments, and for whom the amount or manner of their benefit payment was altered by the 2013 Amendment; and the Beneficiaries of those Participants.

Status of the Litigation

The Complaint was filed on January 15, 2014. Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Virginia; that motion was granted and the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia as of August 7, 2015. The Amended Complaint was filed on October 27, 2015 and on January 21, 2016, the Consolidated Complaint was filed. On December 4, 2015, the judge denied the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed their motion for class certification on December 9, 2015. Discovery ended on February 26, 2016. After the end of discovery, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Plaintiffs’ opposed. A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion on class certification was held on April 1, 2016 and a hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment Hearing was held on April 8, 2016. On [date], 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed both aspects of the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Whom to Contact for More Information

If you are a member of the proposed class or you have information which might assist us in the prosecution of these allegations, please contact one of the following persons:

R. Joseph Barton, Esq. (
Ming Siegel, Paralegal (
Block & Leviton LLP
1735 20th Street NW
Washington DC 20009
(202) 734-7046

Lead Plaintiff deadline
class period
Case Documents
No documents available. Contact us if you need a case document.