The other retirees received similar assurances. Moss, who served 37 years, was an assistant vice president in lending; Johnson, who worked at the credit union for 34 years, served as an assistant vice president and loan officer; Hawthorne had 40 years of service and was assistant vice president, corporate secretary and leasing manager; and Christoff with 35 years of service was an EVP.

The lawsuit also claims the retirees were “induced to retire in reliance upon these oral and written representations.” They all retired before March 2009. The retirees received a notice from the credit union in September 2015 that their retirement benefits would be canceled on Dec. 31, 2015.

In April 1988, the credit union established a retirement plan that provides money for life to pay retired employee’s premiums for life insurance, dental coverage and group health coverage. Some of the retirees who are suing Union Square CU also helped create and implement the retirement plan. The retirement benefits were governed by the plan, which essentially consisted only of a policy in the company handbook, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the credit union violated terms of the retirement plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The retirees also claim that the acts of the credit union were fraudulent because it made false material misrepresentations.

In addition to denying all of the allegations made by the retirees, Union Square CU has asked a federal judge to dismiss the civil complaint.

The credit union argues that the retirees’ lawsuit should be dismissed because its retirement plan was not an ERISA plan.

“Defendant respectfully submits … that this lawsuit should be dismissed because no facts are alleged in the complaint that would plausibly or possibly permit the conclusion or even the reasonable inference that defendant’s retirement policy was an ERISA plan,” according to the credit union’s request to dismiss.

Union Square CU argued its retirement plan was not subject to ERISA rules because of a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said for a company’s retirement plan to be regulated by ERISA, it must have “an ongoing administrative program to meet the employer’s obligation.” Union Square pointed out in court documents that its retirement plan did not have an ongoing administrative program.

Union Square CU also asked a federal judge to dismiss the fraud allegation because it lacked specificity.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege statements that were allegedly fraudulent, who made them and when, where and how defendant made them,” the credit union stated in court documents. “The complaint simply states legal conclusions without demonstrating how any supporting facts would apply to those conclusions.”

The retirees are asking a federal judge to pay the benefits that were wrongfully held.