Employment Law Case Study: Helton v. AT&T and HR Department Duties

This report analyzes the employment law case of Helton v. AT&T, where an employee alleged the company failed to perform its statutory duties regarding her pension plan, resulting in the loss of benefits. The report summarizes the case, including the plaintiff's claims, the company's alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the courts' decisions. The analysis focuses on the legal issues, such as the company's failure to inform the employee about pension plan amendments and fulfill its fiduciary duties. It also explores the impacts of the case on HR matters, emphasizing the department's responsibility to act in the best interests of employees and provide adequate assistance regarding pension plans. The report concludes with a discussion of the implications for HR practices and employee rights.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
Helton v AT & T
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1EMPLOYMENT LAW
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Discussion:.................................................................................................................................2
Summary:...............................................................................................................................2
Legal issues:...........................................................................................................................2
Reason for the decision:.........................................................................................................3
Impacts on HR matters:..........................................................................................................3
Reference....................................................................................................................................4

2EMPLOYMENT LAW
Introduction:
The present report is based on the case of Helton, an employee of AT & T Inc. she
brings an allegation against the company that the company had failed to perform its statutory
duties regarding pension plan and due to this, she had deprived of her benefits for eight long
years. After perusing all the related matters, both the District Court and the Supreme Court
delivered their judgment against the company (Albano & Sanyshyn, 2016).
Discussion:
Summary:
It has been observed that the plaintiff was working in the company and after serving
certain period, she retired from her post and did not approach for the pension scheme as she
thought that she will not eligible for the pension until the age of sixty five. However, it has
been observed that the company had amended certain provisions regarding the pension plan
and did not followed up the same to her. Due to this, she had lost her benefits and alleged that
the company had breached its statutory duties. It has been observed that the company had
failed to maintain the provision of Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974
regarding disclosure obligation (Anderson, 2015). It was also alleged by her that it was the
fiduciary duty of the company to keep her informed about the pension plan, but they failed to
do it. After analysing the documents and the evidences, both the courts had held the company
guilty and pronounced its judgment in favour of Helton.
Legal issues:
The main legal issue of the case is that whether the company had failed to perform
their statutory and fiduciary duties regarding the pension plan or not and whether the

3EMPLOYMENT LAW
provisions of Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 has been violated by the
company.
Reason for the decision:
It has been observed that before taking the retirement at the age of fifty five years, she
made a mail to the company regarding her pension plan, but the company had not pay any
heed to it. Later on the company had made an amendment to the pension plan but did not
informed her (Clark, Morrill & Vanderweide, 2014). It has also been observed that the
company had failed to perform the necessary duties as per the provision of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act 1974. It has also been observed that after she had
approached before the company regarding her lost benefit, company denied providing the
same to her without showing reasonable cause.
Impacts on HR matters:
This case has cleared the fact that the Human Resource department should have to
work for the benefit and interest of the employees. In this case, the HR department had failed
to perform their duties even after the plaintiff had sent them mail. They had failed to inform
her about the pension plan and later incident, failed to provide her sufficient assistance
regarding the pension (Koedel, Ni & Podgursky, 2014). This case cleared that it is the duty of
the HR department to act for the employees and in any case, they failed to perform it, the
affected employee can claim compensation from them.

4EMPLOYMENT LAW
Reference
Albano, J., & Sanyshyn, A. (2016). Corporate Criminal Liability. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 53,
1027.
Anderson, A. J. (2015). Leveling the Playing Field among the NFL, Clubs, and Players-by
Amending the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Marq. Sports L. Rev., 26,
199.
Clark, R. L., Morrill, M. S., & Vanderweide, D. (2014). Defined benefit pension plan
distribution decisions by public sector employees. Journal of Public Economics, 116,
73-88.
Koedel, C., Ni, S., & Podgursky, M. (2014). Who benefits from pension
enhancements?. Education, 9(2), 165-192.