Vincent Cheng

Associate

Vincent Cheng is an associate at the firm and a member of the Employee Benefits Group and Veterans/Servicemember Rights Group.

Prior to joining Block & Leviton, Vincent had over eight years of experience in litigating a variety of employee benefits and employment cases. 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).

  • University of California, Berkeley School of Law, J.D.
  • University of California, Berkeley, B.A., Philosophy and Mathematics
  • California
  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Central District of California
  • Eastern District of California
  • Northern District of California
  • Northern District of Illinois
  • 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.

Author, “National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan: A Problematic Formulation of the Continuing Violation Theory,” California Law Review (October 2003)