There were 2 lawsuits against GE for revoking the Medical and Prescription Drug Plans for PensionersBoth Lawsuits have been dismissed;  but the Hourly Lawsuit is NOW being appealed (waiting on Court of Appeals to set a date).  Go to the page you are interested in and download the files. These are the actual filings by the Salary and Hourly Law Firms and GE.

Lawsuit review-3

Click on the Files you wish to see–

Hourly Lawsuit Files

Salary Lawsuit Files



Hourly Lawsuit Appeal Update–8-16-2018

IUE-CWA, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Defendant-Appellee.  Case No. 17-3885;  August 16, 2018, Filed

Final Appeal Ruling–Denied–the Court Document

Opinion of Justice Stranch–one of the 3 Appeals Court Judges–very interesting opinion on “promises made, but not kept’ as being interpreted by previous rulings and ERISA interpretation …well said in our favor, I believe.



Hourly Lawsuit Update– 8-3-2017

Judge Benita Y Pearson–Case-4-15-CV-02301-Hourly–Doc 62–7-28-2017– Final Decision & Order


Judge Pearson–  For the reasons set forth in the Court Document about–Healthcare/Welfare Vesting Claim, Benefits Change Challenged– Breach of a Fiduciary Duty Claim, & Claim that Defendant’s Change as of January 1, 2015 to the Structure of the Drug Plan and the Medicare A Plan was Unlawful;  and those that have been articulated in the memoranda of points and authorities on which Defendant relies in support of the motion;  Defendant’s Motion (GE) to Dismiss (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED.

SEE the HOURLY Lawsuit Page–for the Documents of 7/28/2017.  (



Salaried Lawsuit Update–6-15-2017

Judge Lynn Adelman’s DecisionCase No. 14-CV-1358 Final Decision & Order–Dismissal


Plaintiffs have not shown that they were cognizably harmed by GE’s fiduciary conduct with respect to the plans, so they lack standing to sue GE for breach of its fiduciary duties under ERISA. Thus, I will grant GE’s motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiffs’ motion for same. Granting GE’s motion, which it “elected to [file] . . . before [I] decided whether to certify the suit as a class action,” Cowen v. Bank United of Texas, FSB, 70 F.3d 937, 941 (7th Cir. 1995); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1) advisory committee’s notes to 2003 amendment, quoted in Costello v. Beavex, Inc., 810 F.3d 1045, 1058 n.3 (7th Cir. 2016), moots plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, see Cowen, 70 F.3d at 941, so I will deny it.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that GE’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 70) is GRANTED, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) is DENIED, and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (ECF No. 65) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of June, 2017.

The actual Court Document is available on the Salaried Lawsuit page



Hourly Lawsuit Update–5-20-2017

After the Judge (Federal District Court—Northern District of Ohio—Judge Benita Pearson) denied the Unions request for Lift on the Stay of Discovery;  a Telephone Conference was held on 4/17/2017 to discuss the status of the Case (4:15-CV-02301). Of course, GE is asking for dismissal of the case. All of it rests on the Courts decision of whether the Contract (CBA) and the Pension & Insurance Agreement (PIA) contains ambiguity—in other words does the CBA and/or PIA state clearly, or not, the vesting of lifetime Retiree Healthcare Benefits. Again, GE says no, and the Law Firm for the Union says yes, there is ambiguity in the Contact (CBA) and PIA agreements.

On the Hourly Lawsuit Page, are the Unions lawyers brief, and GE’s response—Doc’s No. 60 & 61—The Plaintiffs being the Union/Hourly, the Defendant being GE. These documents had to be filed by 5/4/2017, and could be no more than 10 pages in length, as agreed.  This dismissal motion has to be considered for this case to proceed, or not.



Here are the latest Lawsuit Updates4-11-2017

I’m a little behind…but catching up.  All documents/files are posted on the links above–Hourly Lawsuit Files & Salaried Lawsuit Files


Case 4-15-cv-02301-Hourly Lawsuit– 04-04-17–Order on Stay of Discovery & Dismissal—the Motion to Lift the Stay of Discovery was denied by the Ohio Court; the Court still needs to decide (first) the Motion to Dismiss by GE; there will be a “Status Conference” on April 17th, 2017—requested by the CBC Unions.


Case-2-14-cv-01358Salaried Lawsuit– 02-23-2017—GE’s Motion to Seal Documents Denied—GE wanted to “Seal” certain documents (# 69, 78, 89) from public view—that they claimed were business confidential. The Judge disagreed.

Document #69–The specified Anderson Declaration Exhibits comprise documents relating to the business and decision-making of the GE Board of Directors (the “Board”) and the Board’s Management Development and Compensation Committee (“MDCC”). They include minutes of Board and MDCC meetings as well as presentations made to the Board and the MDCC. These documents contain nonpublic business and financial information about GE and its benefits programs. Similarly, the Weals Declaration Exhibit is the report of GE’s expert witness and discusses nonpublic financial information about GE and its benefit programs, as well as the named Plaintiffs’ medical benefits.

All of these documents reflect commercially sensitive business and financial information.

Therefore, there is a compelling interest for these documents to be placed under seal, and GE has demonstrated good cause for withholding these documents from the public record. (Denied—JMP)

 Document # 78— The documents to be filed under seal consist of internal GE emails, minutes from GE Board meetings, and information from GE’s outside consultant, Towers Watson. All the documents were in good faith marked “Confidential” by defendant GE pursuant to this Court’s protective order entered September 23, 2015.

Document #89— This exhibit consists of a slide produced by GE regarding its health and life insurance costs.


Case 2-14-cv-01358Salaried Lawsuit—from 06-06-16 -Document 72it is a Good Explanation of the Timeline of GE’s Decision Making Process to Change Retiree Healthcare. Well worth reading again…if you haven’t. It is the document that also claims “No Harm” to the litigants/plaintiffs (Kaufmann, Rocheleau); [without considering the harms , if this case should become a Class Action lawsuit to all the Salaried Retirees & their Dependents.—JMP]. (Charlie…I thought, you’d particularly, like this document)


Legal Update– 2/1/2017

Hourly LawsuitCase No:  4: 15-cv-o2301–Ohio Federal Court–Filed-11/9/2015–54 documents filed so far.  The Lawyers for the Union filed for a Lift of the Stay on Discovery (collecting data/documents from GE);  GE Opposed–saying their is NO HARM under Article 3, and the Court needed to rule on their Motion for Dismissal first (because why should they collect and send a lot of documents/data, if the Judge rules to Dismiss).  Last document filed– 10/17/2016;  waiting on Judge/Court.

Salaried Lawsuit–Case No:  2: 14-cv-1358–Wisconsin Federal Court–Filed 10/28/2014–95 documents filed so far.  Last  document filed–1/6/2017–Again, GE claiming NO HARM to Plaintiffs Kaufmann & Rocheleau;  therefore case should be dismissed, and should NOT be granted “Class Action.” status, basically.  Obviously, The Judge/Court has not ruled yet on these motions;  waiting on Court/Judge.

Legal Lawsuits Review–Salaried & Hourly–October 2016–from the First General Membership Meeting, with Dennis Rocheleau giving us an update of BOTH the Salaried & Hourly Lawsuits, and then responding to questions that followed.  Please Read this Document (PDF format)–clicking the link above–Very Interesting & Informative!  The Video/Phone Conference/Meeting with Dennis can be seen here–