Law Firm Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz Announces: Former Employees Sue Visteon, Say They Were Misled

SOUTHFIELD, Mich.--Jan. 6, 2004--Law Firm Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz announces that fifty-four former Visteon employees have filed suit against the $18 billion automotive supplier, charging, among other counts, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, good faith and fair dealing.

The former employees -- many of them with more than 30 years with the company and predecessor Ford Motor Company -- say that after receiving notice of termination of employment in 2001 and 2002 they were misled into signing waiver and release agreements they were told were non-negotiable.

They say they were given -- as were hundreds of other employees -- summaries of a Visteon Separation Program (VSP) titled "Visteon Severance Allowance Waiver Benefit" under which they would receive up to 12 months of their base salary if they signed the release, but only three months if they did not sign. They were each advised specifically in writing that the terms of the benefit plan could not be changed.

Based upon Visteon's statement that those were the only options, the 54 former employees all signed the agreement and did not attempt to negotiate, according to Donald J. Gasiorek, a senior shareholder at Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, the plaintiff litigation law firm representing the former employees.

The complaint alleges that none was informed that there was a choice of negotiating different benefits, even though Visteon was simultaneously negotiating different and additional benefits with other employees. The complaint also alleges that, even after negotiating different and additional benefits with other employees, Visteon continued to inform the 54 employees that the VSP benefits were non-negotiable, in breach of its duty to the employees to act in their interest as plan participants and beneficiaries.

It also alleges that Visteon breached its duty as a fiduciary when it made inaccurate and misleading statements, when it knew that the statements were false, and when it knew that the former employees were relying on those statements when they signed the release.