Allstate (ALL)

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company’s agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  These matters are in various stages of development.

·                  These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws (the “EEOC I” suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), breach of contract and ERISA violations (the “Romero I” suit).  In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court’s declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to Allstate “any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release.”  The court also stated that, “on the undisputed facts of record,

20

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company’s agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  These matters are in various stages of development.

·      These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws (the “EEOC I” suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), breach of contract and ERISA violations (the “Romero I” suit).  In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court’s declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to Allstate “any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release.”  The court also stated that, “on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination.”  The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their request.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company’s motions for summary judgment.  Following plaintiffs’ filing of a notice of appeal, the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court along with the merits of the appeal.

·      The EEOC also filed another lawsuit in 2004 alleging age discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of agents affected by the agency program reorganization (the “EEOC II” suit).  In EEOC II, in 2006, the court granted partial summary judgment to the EEOC.  Although the court did not determine that the Company was liable for age discrimination under the ADEA, it determined that the rehire policy resulted in a disparate impact, reserving for trial the determination on whether the Company had reasonable factors other than age to support the rehire policy.  In June 2008, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in the EEOC’s favor.  The Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

·      The Company is also defending a certified class action filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to the agency program reorganization.  Plaintiffs allege that they were constructively discharged so that Allstate could avoid paying ERISA and other benefits offered under the reorganization.  They claim that the constructive discharge resulted from the implementation of agency standards, including mandatory office hours and a requirement to have licensed staff available during business hours.  The court approved the form of class notice which was sent to approximately 1,800 potential class members in November 2007.  Fifteen individuals opted out.  The Company’s motions for judgment on the pleadings were partially granted.  In May 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in Allstate’s favor on all class claims.  Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and in the alternative to decertify the class.  Allstate opposed this motion and filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining non–class claim.

·      A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a worker classification issue.  These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.  This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted Allstate’s motion to dismiss the case.  Following plaintiffs’ filing of a notice of appeal, the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court along with the merits of the appeal.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company’s agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  These matters are in various stages of development.

·                  These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws (the “EEOC I” suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), breach of contract and ERISA violations (the “Romero I” suit).  In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court’s declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to Allstate “any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release.”  The court also stated that, “on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination.”  The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their request.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company’s motions for summary judgment.  Following plaintiffs’ filing of a notice of appeal, the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court along with the merits of the appeal.

·                  The EEOC also filed another lawsuit in 2004 alleging age discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of agents affected by the agency program reorganization (the “EEOC II” suit).  In EEOC II, in 2006, the court granted partial summary judgment to the EEOC.  Although the court did not determine that the Company was liable for age discrimination under the ADEA, it determined that the rehire policy resulted in a disparate impact, reserving for trial the determination on whether the Company had reasonable factors other than age to support the rehire policy.  The Company’s interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s summary judgment order is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

·                  The Company is also defending a certified class action filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to the agency program reorganization.  Plaintiffs allege that they were constructively discharged so that Allstate could avoid paying ERISA and other benefits offered under the reorganization.  They claim that the constructive discharge resulted from the implementation of agency standards, including mandatory office hours and a requirement to have licensed staff available during business hours.  The court approved the form of class notice which was sent to approximately 1,800 potential class members in November 2007.  Fifteen individuals opted out.  The Company’s motions for judgment on the pleadings were partially granted and the Company’s motion for summary judgment remains pending.

19