Romero v. Allstate Insurance

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOB CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE

RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge.

*331 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND . CO

A. Allstate’s Agency Programs Prior to 1999. CO

1. The NO A Program . CO

2. R830 and R1500 Contracts. CO

3. Allstate’s Exclusive Agent Independent Contractor Program . CO

4. Allstate’s Litigation with the IRS. CO

B. The Preparing for the Future Group Reorganization Program 00

1. The Sales Organization of the Future Initiative. CO

2. Background Behind the Preparing for the Future Program .. CO

3. The Announcement of the Preparing for the Future Program. CO

CO

5. The Release . CO

6. The OWBPA Disclosure. CO

7. State-Specific Issues. CO

a. New Jersey. CO

b. Montana. CO

c. West Virginia. CO

d. Delaware. CO

8. Alleged Misrepresentations by Allstate about the Program. CO

a. Confidentiality and Non-Compete Restrictions . CO

b. Rehire Policy. CO

c. Commission Rates. CO

d. Expected Results for R3001 Agents. CO

e.

C. The Romero Plaintiffs. CO

1. General Information. CO

2. Plaintiffs’ Consultations Regarding the Program and Release. CO

3. Plaintiffs’ Program Option Selections. CO

a. The EA Option. CO

. CO

c. The Enhanced Severance Option. CO

d. The Base Severance Option. CO

4. Rationales’ for Plaintiffs’ Program Selections. CO

5. EEOC Charges . CO

D. Procedural History. CO

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW. o CO CO

III. DISCUSSION.

A. Whether the Release Reaches All of The Claims Asserted in Romero I and Count II of Romero II. 3 CO

1. Romero I Claims and Count II of Romero II. 3 CO

2. Counts I and III of Romero II . co CO

a. Whether the Language of the Release Excepts Out the Claims or Is Ambiguous and Should Be Construed in Plaintiffs’ Favor. CO Oí cn

(i) “Claim to Benefits”. CO Oí

(ii) “Benefits to which I am entitled”. CO o

b. Whether Counts I and III Arose After the Execution of the Release. CO CO

c. Whether Plaintiffs’ ERISA Claims Are Protected by ERISA’s Anti-Alienation Provision. 3. Conclusion Regarding the Scope of the Release. CO CO -Q o\ co

B. Whether the Release Is Valid. CO —3 oí

1. Compliance with the OWBPA Disclosure Requirements CO —3 en

a. The Disclosure Requirements . CO ""3 <1

(i) Voluntary and Involuntary Terminations .. CO —•3 co

*332 (ii) Montana Agents CO 00 H*

(iii) Exclusion of R3000 Agents from the List of Those Not Eligible or Selected. CO 00 CO

(iv) Inclusion of New Jersey Agents. CO CO CR

b. The “Understandability” Requirement. CO 00 -3

(i) Complex Language. CO 00 00

(ii) Whether the Release Created the False Impression that Agents Could Not Challenge Its Validity or File EEOC Charges. CO <x> I — 1

e. The Consideration Requirement. CO co <1

(i) Whether Plaintiffs Were Entitled to Continued Employment and Employment Benefits. CO co -3

(ii) Whether Allstate Provided Plaintiffs With Any Consideration in Addition to That to Which They Were Already Entitled. CO CO CO

(iii) Conclusion as to Consideration. ^ o ^

d. Conclusion as to the OWBPA Requirements. ^ o

2. Whether the Release Was Knowingly and Voluntarily Executed Under the Totality of the Circumstances. (O

a. Whether the Release Was Voluntarily Signed.

b. Whether the Release Was Knowingly Signed. t — i

c. Conclusion as to Knowing and Voluntary Execution of the Release. tr-t — i

3. Whether the Release Was Unconscionable. c-1 — i

a. Procedural Unconscionability. 1 — I

b. Substantive Unconscionability. oo r — t

IV. CONCLUSION. .419

MEMORANDUM

Currently pending before the Court are the Cross-motions for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Gene R. Romero, et al. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), Defendants Allstate Insurance Company, et al. (collectively “Allstate” or “Defendant”), and Defendant Edward M. Liddy as to the Validity of the Release. For the following reasons, all Motions are denied.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural background of this case is a lengthy and convoluted one, commencing in 1999 and spanning to the present day. The general facts are well-known to both the parties and the Court. The sole issue of relevance at this juncture is whether the release of claims signed by Plaintiffs is valid and/or bars Plaintiffs’ claims for relief. For the sake of both simplicity and judicial economy in an already complex case, the Court will set forth only the basic, undisputed facts regarding the events that led to this litigation 1 and will deal with the disputed issues of fact regarding the Release in the course of the legal discussion.

A. Allstate’s Agency Programs Prior to 1999 2

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is an Illinois Corporation that sells insur- *333 anee and related products and services. Defendant Edward M. Liddy is the former President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of Allstate. He served as Chief Operating Officer from August 1994 to January 1999, as Chief Executive Officer from January 1999 to May 2005, and as Chairman of the Board of Directors from January 1999 to April 2008.

As of November 1999, Allstate’s agency force included approximately 15,200 captive agents that worked for either Allstate Insurance Company or Allstate New Jersey and could sell and service only Allstate authorized products. Approximately fifty-four percent of the agents operated under one of several employment contracts — the R830 Agent Compensation Agreement, the R1500 Agent Employment Agreement, the eighteen-month R3000 Exclusive Agent Employment Agreement, or the eighteen-month R4616 associate agent contract. After eighteen months under the R3000 contract, Allstate offered approved agents the R3001 contract. The R4616 contract was self-terminating after eighteen months and, with good performance by the agent, could lead to an additional contract. The remaining forty-six percent of agents worked as independent contractors under the R3001 contract. All of the Plaintiffs in this case, except Arlene Wendt, were employed as an employee agent under either an R830 or R1500 contract. Each of the agent programs and contracts had a variety of differing terms. Allstate’s R830 and R1500 contracts, however, were not subject to negotiation and were therefore uniform or “standardized.” All captive agents, regardless of their contract, sold the same products and had the same managers. In addition, as of November 1999, Allstate had about 400 captive employee agents in Canada who sold Allstate property and casualty insurance.

1. The NOA Program

Prior to 1984, Allstate sold its insurance products primarily through employee agents located in Sears retail stores or in Neighborhood Sales Offices or Local Sales Offices. In 1984, Allstate introduced the Neighborhood Office Agent (“NOA”) Program, the reasons for which are disputed by the parties. At the time it introduced the NOA Program, Allstate also introduced the R1500 Agreement. Existing R830 agents could continue working under their existing agent program or voluntarily enter the NOA Program by either signing an amendment to the R830 Agreement or entering into an R1500 Agreement. Also effective in 1984, all new agents joining Allstate were required to both be NOAs and work under the R1500 Agreement. 3 The R830 and R1500 Agreements were employee contracts.

According to Allstate, the NOA Program was designed to provide employee agents more “entrepreneurial” discretion than those working in Sears stores or company-owned Neighborhood Sales Offices since NOA agents were able to operate individual Allstate agencies with clerical and solicitor support staff they hired through a *334 temporary agency and could choose their locations and officer partners. To market the NOA Program to its existing agents, Allstate represented that if “you” wanted to have “a proprietary interest in a business,” “choose your own office site,” “select your own clerical help,” “have unlimited income potential,” and still “have job security,” then “you” should become an Allstate NOA. (Declaration of Coleen M. Meehan (“Meehan Decl.”), Ex. 92 (“NOA Brochure”), at RH05112.) Plaintiffs, on the other hand, believe that the NOA Program was designed to shift costs from the company to the employee agents and grant the agents a clear “proprietary interest” in the business.

Allstate required the NOA employee agents to lease or otherwise secure their agency office location in their own names within an Allstate specified geographic area. Agents in the NOA Program also paid their own office and operating expenses, including telephone lines, certain of which were subject to reimbursement from an Allstate-provided office expense allowance (“OEA”). NOA agents had discretion to manage their OEA funds and office expenses, but the OEA was not always sufficient to cover routine office expenses. The maximum amount of OEA reimbursement available under the NOA employee program was approximately twenty percent of the commissions earned when a policy was issued or renewed. Agents had to invest their own funds to pay for operating costs above the OEA. Indeed, Allstate’s NOA Ready Reference Guide for Market Sales Managers directed managers, when interviewing prospective NOAs, to “[m]ake sure that the candidate is willing and able to spend his or her money....” (Meehan Decl., Ex. 98 (“NOA Ready Reference Guide”), at ARI 142109.) The NOA Manual also stated that an agent could obtain an OEA advance from Allstate to pay up front expenses. Agents who received an OEA advance signed a “permanent advance receipt” acknowledging that the funds were Allstate’s property and that the agents promised to repay them. The NOA Manual provided that unpaid advances outstanding at termination would be deducted from final pay and/or reimbursement where permitted by law. Plaintiffs contend that, over the years, Allstate urged all of its NOA agents to invest in their agencies. In turn, many of the Plaintiffs made substantial investments in their agencies. All Plaintiffs incurred over $10,000 in unreimbursed business expenses, and over half incurred such expenses in excess of $100,000.

2. R830 and R1500 Contracts

The introductory paragraph of Allstate’s R830 contract represented to employee agents that their “agreement was carefully planned to provide you with financial opportunity and security!, including] ... the security of continued income gained through renewals!,] ... the opportunity to share in the profits you help create, and the usually broad protection plans for you and your family through the Allstate benefit package. (Declaration of Jordan M. Heinz (“Heinz Decl.”), Ex. 10 (“R830 Agreement”), at ARI 020338.) The R830 Agreement, however, provided that, “You do not have ... any vested interest in any business produced under the terms of this agreement.” (Id. Part Four ¶ II, at ARI 020346.) Similarly, the R1500 Agreement provided that “[t]he Company will own all business produced under the terms of this Agreement. You acknowledge that you have no vested interest in such business.” (Heinz Decl., Ex. 11 (“R1500 Agreement”) ¶ 3.b, at ARI 002036.)

Employee agents under the R830 and R1500 agents were eligible for a wide range of company-sponsored health and welfare benefits, including group medical *335 insurance coverage for themselves and families, group dental insurance coverage for themselves and families, group vision care coverage for themselves and families, group long term care insurance, group long term disability insurance, group life insurance coverage, group accidental death and dismemberment (AD & D) insurance coverage, use of pre-tax Flexible Spending Accounts, group coverage for certain legal services, and paid vacation. In addition, all full-time employee agents were entitled to a “production allowance” paid by Allstate to compensate for new business production lost because of authorized absences or attendance at certain company meetings.

Both the R830 and the R1500 Agreements had termination provisions. The R830 Agreement stated as follows:

This agreement will automatically terminate upon your death. Either you or Allstate have the right to terminate this agreement upon mailing to the other, at his or its last known address, written notice of termination. After such termination you agree not to act or represent yourself in any way as our agent. The Company will not terminate your employment because of unsatisfactory work unless you have been notified that your work is unsatisfactory and that your job is in jeopardy and unless you have been given a reasonable opportunity to bring your performance up to satisfactory standards.... In no event shall an employee be released for any reason without the following review and approval procedure having been adhered to ...

(Heinz Deck, Ex. 10, R830 Agreement, Part Four ¶XI.) Employees who signed the R830 contract had the right to have any involuntary termination reviewed by the Agent Review Board. Likewise, the R1500 Agreement contained the following termination provision:

Your employment and this Agreement will automatically terminate upon your death, retirement, loss or relinquishment of your insurance agent license, or failure to return to work upon expiration of a leave of absence. In addition, your employment and this Agreement may be terminated at will by either party, subject only to such limitations and restrictions as may be imposed by law, and in accordance with Company rules and procedures. Termination shall be effective upon giving notice of termination orally or in writing, delivered personally or mailed to the last known address of the other. Upon termination, you agree not to act or represent yourself in any way as an employee, agent or representative of the Company, except as otherwise agreed to in writing by you and the Company.

(Heinz Deck, Ex. 11, R 1500 Agreement, ¶ 11, at ARI 002038) The R1500 Procedure Manual also provided for agents to receive a job in jeopardy notice, be given a reasonable opportunity to cure, and receive a review of the termination through the Agent Review Board.

Although neither the R830 Agreement nor the R1500 Agreement provided severance or post-termination pay in the event of termination, Allstate maintained two pre-existing ERISA plans — the Allstate Severance Pay Plan and Allstate Service Allowance Plan — in the event of certain types of involuntary terminations. The Allstate Severance Pay Plan stated that post-termination pay could be provided under the Allstate Severance Pay Plan if the agent’s employment was “involuntarily terminated by the Employer for lack of work, employees, rearrangement of work, or reduction in workforce, as determined in the sole discretion of the appropriate Human Resource Account Team leader of the Employer.” (Heinz Deck, Ex. 24, (“Allstate *336 Severance Pay Plan”), at A046690.) It expressly did not apply to employees “terminated under the terms of any group reorganization/restructuring benefit plan or. program sponsored by the Employer.” (Id.) The severance benefit under the Allstate Severance Pay Plan was “two (2) weeks of pay for each complete year of service [up] to a maximum of fifty-two (52) weeks of pay.” (Id. at A46692.) This plan did not impose any non-solicitation or non-compete obligations.

The Allstate Service Allowance Plan provided for post-termination pay if the agent’s employment was “involuntarily terminated by the Employer for inability to satisfactorily perform the responsibilities of his/her position as determined in the sole discretion of the appropriate Human Resource Account Team Leader of the Employer.” (Heinz Deck, Ex. 25 (“Allstate Service Allowance Plan”), at A004944.) The amount of the mandatory service allowance under this plan depended on the agents’ completed years of service and ranged from “two weeks of pay (for 1-4 years of continuous service) and thirteen weeks of pay (for 20 and over years of continuous service).” (Id. at A004945.) Like the previous plan, this plan did not impose any non-solicitation or non-compete obligations.

R830 and R1500 employee agents also participated in the Pension Plan, a traditional defined benefit plan designed “to provide, at no cost to employee agents, an income based on [their] level of compensation and length of employee service, upon retirement.” (Meehan Deck, Ex. 67 (“Agents Pension Plan”), at A008649.) Under the Pension Plan’s benefit formula, the greater the agent’s compensation and the greater their years of service, the larger their pension benefit at retirement, although the Pension Plan benefits ceased accruing once an agent hit a certain income level. Normal retirement benefits were payable on or after age sixty-five, but those with twenty or more years of continuous service could retire and start their benefit as early as age fifty-five. In addition, those who completed twenty or more years of continuous service were entitled to an early retirement subsidy for a “beef-up” of the compensation used in calculating their pension before Allstate purported to phase out the benefit between 1991 and 1999. “Continuous service” required that an employee have no more than twelve months between any termination of or retirement from employment with Allstate and his/her reemployment by Allstate.

Aside from employer-provided pension benefits, R830 and R1500 agents could fund their retirement through Allstate’s 401(k) plan — the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund — and receive an annual company match up to a certain percentage. In addition, Allstate had long provided subsidized medical coverage for its retirees and their eligible dependents, as well as retiree life insurance benefits for those eligible. To be eligible for retiree medical and life, employee agents needed to work as Allstate employees until they attained at least (a) age sixty or (b) age fifty-five with at least twenty years of continuous service. These eligibility requirements were reduced to age fifty with at least ten years of service in cases involving “a right sizing, migration environment, or for health reasons.” (Meehan Deck, Ex. 69 (“March 12, 1993 Memo to Managers”), at ARI 071978.) If an R830/R1500 agent converted to an Exclusive Agent (described below), the agent forever lost the opportunity to receive the retiree medical or life insurance benefits. Like the Pension Plan, the greater the number of years of service completed by an R830/R1500 agent, the greater the company subsidy for retiree medical coverage.

*337 Each year, Allstate provided all R830 and R1500 agents with a personalized statement of “total compensation,” which Allstate defined as comprising both pay and benefits to highlight their compensation from a total package benefit perspective. In these statements, Allstate emphasized the importance of the benefits and noted that they were a significant component of their total compensation. Allstate included paid time off as a component of the agents’ compensation. Independent contractors were not offered similar benefits.

3. Allstate’s Exclusive Agent Independent Contractor Program

In 1990, Allstate introduced the Exclusive Agency (“EA”) Program. In that Program, agents could first operate under an eighteen-month provisional R3000 employee contract. After eighteen months under the R3000 Contract, Allstate offered approved agents the R3001 contract to become so-called independent contractor Exclusive Agents. Alternatively, agents could enter directly as independent contractors under an R3001 Agreement. With the introduction of the R3000/R3001 contracts, Allstate ceased using the R1500 contract for newly hired agents. This was the first time in Allstate’s history that it deviated from an all-employee agency force.

The R3001 Agreement differed from the employee agent programs in several respects. First, the R3001 expressly provided that agents under this Agreement were “independent eontractorfs] for all purposes and not ... employee[s] of the Company.” (Heinz Deck, Ex. 31 (“R3001 Agreement”), at I.B.) Second, Allstate contends that while employee agents were required to run individual agencies under Allstate’s supervision, EAs had more flexibility in their office operations — a fact which Plaintiffs dispute. Third, agents operating under the R3001 contract accrued an immediate vested interest in the business developed under the R3001 contract, and those who converted to the EA Agreement before January 1, 2000 possessed an “interest,” transferable after a set period of time, in the policies and accounts that they had generated while working as an employee under the R830 and/or R1500 contracts. Fourth,, renewal commissions payable to EAs were greater than the commissions payable to R830 and R1500 agents. Fifth, EAs were not entitled to the same office expense reimbursements as R830/R1500 agents. Finally, EAs were not given the same employee benefit entitlements of R830/R1500 agents.

R830 and R1500 agents could apply to convert to the EA Program. In order to convert, agents had to undergo a multi-step application process, which included submission of an Exclusive Agent Appointment Request, a Letter of Understanding, a business plan, and a final approval request, as well as repayment of all outstanding advances to Allstate. Between 1990 and May 1998, agents who wished to convert also had to meet certain production requirements and have certain ratings on their most recent evaluations. As of June 1998, however, Allstate eliminated the production and performance criteria for conversion to the EA program. Agents that converted to the EA Program from the R830 or R1500 Agreements between 1990 and November 1999 did not receive a conversion bonus. In addition, for those R830 or R1500 agents who converted to the EA Program prior to November 1999, their economic interest in the book of business serviced while an employee agent became transferable after *338 five years, subject to Allstate’s approval. 4 Allstate encouraged employee agents to convert to this program. Although some agents had converted to the EA Program by 1999, it is unclear exactly how many. Notably, all employee agents who converted to the R3001 Agreement prior November 1999 could do so without having to sign a release.

4. Allstate’s Litigation with the IRS

In the mid-1990s several employee agents in the NO A Program obtained a tax court ruling in the case of Butts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 49 F.3d 713 (11th Cir.1995). The court found that the agents had proven that their professional relationship with Allstate was not as employees, but rather as independent contractors, meaning that their business deductions were to be reported under Schedule C of the tax return and not as Schedule A unreimbursed employee business expenses. Id. This ruling meant that the continued participation of independent contractors in Allstate’s tax-qualified employee benefit plans could have resulted in those plans losing their tax-qualified status.

Allstate and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) subsequently entered into amicable negotiations in order to resolve how to maintain the employee pension plans. Several options were discussed. Allstate’s first option, proposed by the IRS, was for Allstate to re-classify all employee agents as independent contractors. Allstate rejected this proposal and insisted on continuing the NOA program as an employee option. As it stated to the IRS:

[Cjonverting all NOAs to independent contractors would result in a quagmire of litigation and severely disrupt the business activities of Allstate’s agents. Such a change would require amending or terminating the NOAs’ compensation agreements [i.e., R830/R1500 contract] to reflect independent contractor status. A unilateral change to the compensation/expense reimbursement structure for this agent group would undoubtedly lead to litigation and significantly damaged Allstate’s relationship with the agents....

The NOAs are long-service employees. They have expected to be compensated as employees and receive the fringe benefits that Allstate has traditionally provided. Not only would individuals lose future benefit plan accruals and contributions if they were all converted to independent contractors, many of these individuals have spent all of their careers with Allstate and have hoped to retire with retiree life and medical benefits. Ceasing the NOAs’ employee service at this juncture in their careers would have severe economic consequences to them.

(Meehan Deel., Ex. 54 (“Allstate Insurance Company Pre-Submission for June 23, 1997 Meeting”), at ARI10110.)

Next, the IRS proposed that Allstate eliminate the financial risk faced by NOAs by paying for more or all of their business expenses. Allstate likewise rejected this solution. Finally, Allstate proposed that it could change financial control over the *339 NOAs by limiting office rent and support staff to the total of an agent’s OEA.

After several years of negotiations, Allstate and the IRS finally reached an agreement in 1998 (the “IRS Closing Agreement”). This Agreement provided, in part, that beginning by January 1, 1999, NOAs were to perform services for Allstate under the following express terms:

1. Allstate shall restructure its compensation and expense allowance for NOAs as of January 1, 1999. Any changes to an NOA’s compensation and expense allowance as of that date and thereafter shall be made only upon approval by the company.

2. Allstate shall pay directly or maintain a system of reimbursement for Allstate business expenses that are approved by the Company and incurred by an NOA, including office lease and support staff, and Allstate may limit reimbursements to the amount of an NOA’s office expense allowance that is established by the Company.

3. Allstate shall require that no NOA incur combined expenses for office lease or for support staff services that exceed the amount of the NOA’s office expense allowance from the Company.

4. Allstate shall pay a minimum compensation amount to each NOA, regardless of the premium income attributable to such agent.

5. Allstate shall instruct NOAs on how to conduct sales for each of its major product lines and train NOAs on the means and manner of interacting with customers, including specific dialogues and procedures to be followed with customers and policyholders.

6. Allstate shall maintain a system under which NOAs are managed and evaluated on the basis of adherence to the Company’s policies and practices.

7. Allstate shall require that NOAs work full-time and maintain specified office hours.

(Heinz Decl, Ex. 41 (“IRS Closing Agreement”), at ARI 04485.)

In March 1998, Allstate announced to agents that the changes agreed to by Allstate in the Closing Agreement with the IRS would take effect on January 1, 1999. In turn, Allstate required agents to sign an “Acknowledgment of Understanding,” in which NOAs specifically agreed and acknowledged as follows:

By signing this Acknowledgment of Understanding (“Acknowledgment”) which is effective January 1, 1999 and continues in effect so long as I am employed under the R830 or R1500 Agreement, I acknowledge that I am an employee of Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) and that Allstate has the right to control the manner and means by which I perform services for Allstate. I acknowledge that, as a condition of my continued employment, I am required to act in a manner consistent with my status as an employee of Allstate. Note: Under the federal tax laws, unreim-bursed expenses incurred by employees may be reported only on Form 2016 (Employee Business Expenses). Such expenses reported on Form 2106 are required to be transferred to, and deducted, Schedule A of Form 101.0.

If I do not act consistently with my status as an employee, I understand that (1) my R830 or R1500 Agreement, as well as my employment with Allstate, may be terminated at the sole discretion of Allstate and (2) thereafter, Allstate may choose not to allow me to perform agent related services as an independent *340 contractor. I further understand that if I do not, or if any other agent working under the R830 or R1500 Agreement does not, act consistently with employee status, such actions could, among other things, lead to the discontinuation of Allstate’s employee agent programs.

(Heinz Deck, Ex. 42 (“Acknowledgment of Understanding”) (emphasis in original).) In addition, Allstate required agents in the NOA Program to prepare Office Expense Allowance Worksheets to comply with paragraph three of the foregoing Closing Agreement requirements. If the amount of OEA was insufficient to cover office lease and support staff payments, NOA agents could increase the OEA available by reallocating one or two commission percentage points to OEA.

As a result of these changes, there were multiple groups of captive agents and the NOA Program had multiple reimbursement arrangements. According to Allstate, but disputed by Plaintiffs, these modifications resulted in inefficiency and impaired its ability to make product and pricing changes. Moreover, Allstate contends, and Plaintiffs dispute, that the IRS Closing Agreement requirements hindered Allstate’s flexibility and ability to take advantage of opportunities in the marketplace.

B. The Preparing for the Future Group Reorganization Program

I. The Sales Organization of the Future Initiative 5

The Sales Organization of the Future (“SOOF”) initiative was large in scope and used extensive Allstate resources from 1997 to 1998, including dozens of Allstate employees, some of whom worked full-time on the initiative. SOOF was a project led by outside consultant McKinsey & Company (“McKinsey”) to simplify procedures, take low-value-added activities out of the agents’ offices, and allow agents to sell more products. McKinsey was paid $525,000 per month in consulting fees. Nonetheless, the SOOF work was overseen by a high level “steering committee” that included certain of Allstate’s senior officers, including Edward Liddy, who was then Chief Operating Officer of Allstate. Among the other officers on the steering committee were Bob Gary, then President of Allstate’s Personal Property & Casualty business; Steve Groot, then Senior Vice President and President of Allstate Indemnity; Lou Lower, then President of Allstate Life Insurance; Frank Pollard, then Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer; Rita Wilson, then Senior Vice President; and Tom Wilson, then Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. As Allstate advised the IRS, Mr. Liddy chaired a SOOF “task force ... appointed to work directly on [the NOA classification] issues” in the course of “reviewing Allstate’s agent distribution system and ... recommending changes ... to best position Allstate for the future.” (Meehan Deck, Ex. 54, (“Allstate Insurance Company Pre-Submission for June 28, 1997 Meeting”), at ARI 180109.) By November 1997, Messrs. Liddy and Gary had report *341 edly spent approximately forty hours in working sessions with the SOOF team.

Several proposals were offered by McKinsey, although the evidence is disputed as to whether Allstate ever considered such proposals. First, there was a suggestion to impose minimum performance standards, which would result in approximately 1500 agents unable to meet those standards. Second, the SOOF initiative included a separation allowance proposal to allow agents to voluntarily leave Allstate if they did not want to participate in changes. Neither of these proposals was adopted.

One of the questions that the SOOF team discussed was whether agents should be employees or EA’s/independent contractors. The SOOF team recognized that Allstate could “not force conversion of reticent employee agents” and thus proposed a “[gjradual transition to EA ... through [ijncenting employee agents to convert and removing barriers.” (Meehan Deck, Ex. 134 (“SOOF Blueprint of Emerging Vision”), at ARI 210916, ARI 210931.) The draft document entitled “SOOF Emerging Blueprint,” created by McKinsey, stated that “[o]ur objective is to migrate existing agents to EA over a multi-year period.... We will not force conversion; rather we will make migration to EA as attractive as possible by removing barriers such as medical and retirement benefit options.” (Meehan Deck, Ex. 129 (“SOOF Emerging Blueprint November 1997”), at ARI 018587.) The draft document also noted that two-thirds of Allstate agents were employee agents, of which fifty percent were over fifty years old. A McKinsey-prepared document, entitled “Compensation Comparison Across Contracts,” revealed that, in comparing the R830/R1500 contracts versus the EA’s R3001 contract, conversion of all R830/R1500 agents to EAs would result in an Allstate savings of $90 million per year due to the elimination of employee benefits and entitlements. The same document recognized that the “best financial strategy” for an R830/ R1500 agent was “to remain an employee (earning higher revenue)” and then convert to an EA five years before retirement “to cash in on the book as well.” (Meehan Deck, Ex. 120 (“SOOF Compensation Comparison Across Contracts”), at AF061697.) The SOOF team projected, however, that if Allstate took no action to encourage the R830/R1500 agents to convert to EA’s or leave, it would take thirty-one years to remove R830 agents from the system and thirty-five years to remove R1500 agents from the system. McKinsey subsequently looked into how to provide incentives for conversion and to identify disincentives to voluntary conversion. To that end, McKinsey proposed various options. At no time prior to November 1999, however, did Allstate adopt any deadline for conversion or change the age/service requirements under the Pension Plan.

Allstate contends that by November 1999, SOOF was never used in building any real program. It further asserts that SOOF was irrelevant to the November 1999 Program that is the subject of this litigation.

2. Background Behind the Preparing for the Future Program

Effective January 1, 1999, Allstate had five captive agent programs operating pursuant to the following contracts: (1) R3001 contract; (2) R3000 contract; (3) R4614 Associate Agent contract; (4) R830 contract; and (5) R1500 contract. As noted previously, each of these programs had different compensation/commission structures, different OEA formulas, and different evaluation standards. Therefore, in June 1999, Allstate began evaluating whether changes could be made to consolidate its agency programs into a single program. Barry Hutton, an Assistant *342 Vice President in Allstate’s Sales Department, was charged with spearheading this inquiry. Hutton’s team was initially called the Channel Integration Project and/or the Early Bird team. The members of the Channel Integration team included: Helen Brown, Regional Distribution Leader; James Dill, Home Office Counsel; George Giles, Human Resources; Carole Jassen, Senior Sales Manager; Dolores Jossund, Measurement Director, Distribution; Michael Rocen, Senior Sales Professional; and Dudley Bright, Director of Personal Lines Finance. In addition, the team received assistance from field representatives, including Mike Brown, Jim Brown, Brad Roeber, and Ken Schmidt.

Because the team discussed highly sensitive topics and met frequently, the team worked at an off-site location. Members of the team signed a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement. The team then reported, every one or two weeks, to a small group of Allstate officers that included Robert Gary, Phil Lawson, Rick Cohen, and Jeff Kaufman.

The Channel Integration Team was assigned to investigate three broad topics: (1) whether Allstate should move to a single-contract agent program whereby all agents would operate under the same contract; (2) what Allstate could do to help underperforming agencies; and (3) how Allstate could better align agent compensation with company objectives. Mr. Hutton identified two possible designs, both of which involved forcing the conversion of employee agents to the R3001 contract. The parties dispute the reasoning and logic behind the merging of the various agency programs into one. Allstate claims that it was an effort to address the inefficiencies associated with changing all of Allstate’s existing programs to respond to fluid market conditions, the complexity associated with introducing and pricing of new insurance products, and the challenge of supporting an agency force comprised of both employees and independent contractors. Plaintiffs, however, argue that Allstate managed employee agents and exclusive agents in the same way and that Allstate suffered no additional complexities.

The Hutton team selected the EA Program as the program of choice to which it would move all of its agents. Both parties agree that this Program was not impacted by the same IRS issues. Allstate, however, claims that this Program was its most successful and provided the agents with the most freedom. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, suggest that Allstate chose this Program because it significantly lowered the company’s costs by allowing it to have captive agents without either the office expense reimbursement or the costly employee benefits entitlements of its employee agents. By July 1999, the concept of a Release was included in one of the Channel Integration Team presentations entitled “Winning in the New Century,” and the concept of offering three options to employee agents was introduced. The presentation remarked that “[ejmployee agents cannot convert, sell BOB [books of business] or receive the Separation Plan without signing a release.” (Meehan Deck, Ex. 155 (“Winning in the New Century”), at ARI 000631.)

On July 12-13, 1999, Allstate met with its Board of Directors to discuss, among other items, its strategy for employee agents. The discussion was led by Bob Gary, the President of Allstate Property and Casualty. Allstate set aside an hour and one-half with the Board to address its strategy for the agents. One of the slides presented at that meeting stated as follows:

AGENCY TRANSITION

*343 Wish List ■ Agency Reduction in Force Based -» on Standards Realities ■ Not Legally Possible

■ Agents Ail on One Contract -* • Legal and Fairness Issues • Large Charge to Pension Fund

• Reduce Agent Compensation -*■ • Difficult Move in View of All That is Coming Down

(Meehan Decl., Ex. 151 (“Allstate Board of Directors Strategy Meeting”), at ARI 003317.) This same document advised Allstate’s Board that an agent reduction in force based on standards was not legally possible. No minutes were taken of the July 12-13, 1999 Allstate Board of Directors strategy meeting.

In late September 1999, the Hutton team recommended to Richard Cohen, Allstate’s President, that Allstate discontinue its employee agency program and offer all employee agents the opportunity to become Exclusive Agents under an R3001 contract. In September and October 1999, Cohen and Edward Liddy had frequent discussions concerning the Hutton team’s recommendation. In late October, Liddy and Cohen made the decision to go forward with this recommendation. Allstate contends that this decision was necessary to effectively compete in the marketplace, whereas Plaintiffs believe that Allstate made this decision to strip the employee agents of their employee benefits, including pensions, and to rid itself of older employee agents. Ultimately, by late October 1999, the Hutton team moved forward with what became known as the Preparing for the Future Group Reorganization Program (the “Program”). In November 1999, Allstate formally adopted the Agent Transition Severance Plan (“ATSP”), which contained both non-compete and non-solicitation provisions that constituted eligibility requirements for participation in that Plan.

3. The Announcement of the Preparing for the Future Program

On November 10, 1999, Allstate announced the Program by noting that as part of a “New Business Model” it was “reorganizing] its existing captive agency program to a single exclusive agency independent contractor program.” (Meehan Decl, Ex. 37 (“Nov. 10, 1999 Press Release”), at ARI 001257.) At the November 1999 scripted presentation to employee agents, Allstate represented that the Exclusive Agency program is the “premier program” and provides agents with more flexibility to grow their agencies and effectively manage their operations. (Id. at ARI 001264.) With few exceptions, Allstate terminated the employment contracts of the 6,200-plus R830 and R1500 employee agents effective no later than June 30, 2000. Those agents were not given job-in-jeopardy notices, were not offered the opportunity to have their termination reviewed by an Agent Review Board, and were not terminated based on any individual circumstances. While Allstate argues that the Program applied to all agents regardless of age, productivity, or performance, Plaintiffs contend that it adversely and disproportionately impacted older employees since, as agreed by the parties, approximately ninety percent of the R830/R1500 agents were over forty years of age.

In connection with the termination of the R830 and R1500 employment contracts, Allstate offered the agents working *344 under those contracts four options. The first three options were conditioned upon the agents’ agreement to execute a release of claims, while the fourth option did not. The first option was the “EA Option.” According to the Program Information Booklet, this option would allow the agent to enter into an R3001C or R3001S Agreement thereby converting the agent from an employee to an independent contractor. The agent would then be entitled to all of the benefits and requirements of that contract, including increased renewal commissions, plus a conversion bonus, earlier transferability in the agent’s book of business, debt forgiveness, and reimbursement for moving expenses if necessary. The agent was not permitted to take advantage of this option, however, without the signing of a release.

The second option was the “Sale Option.” This option also permitted an agent to enter into R3001C/S Agreement with Allstate, thus converting the agent to an EA independent contractor. In turn, the agent would receive a “conversion bonus” and Allstate would forgive any advances owed, assume certain lease and advertising obligations incurred as an employee agent, and permit the agent, after thirty-days’ service as an EA, to sell his or her book of business written while an R830 or R1500 agent. Again, this option required the agent to sign a release.

The third option was the “Enhanced Severance Option.” Under this option, Allstate would pay the agent “enhanced” severance equal to one year’s pay based on the better of 1997 or 1998 total compensation, forgive debt and/or expenses that Allstate had advanced to the agent, and relieve the agent of certain lease and advertising obligations incurred as an R830 or R1500 agent. Yet again, this option was not available unless the agent signed a release.

The final option was the “Base Severance Option.” If an agent elected this option, then Allstate paid him or her up to thirteen weeks of pay. The agent electing this option did not need to enter into a release, although he/she was subject to certain additional non-compete and non-solicitation obligations. Notably, Allstate had determined that agents affected by the Program were ineligible for the existing severance or post-termination pay plans described above (the Allstate Severance Pay Plan and Allstate Service Allowance Plan) because they were not terminated for any of the reasons set forth in those Plans. Allstate also took the position that the pre-existing severance/post-termination pay Plans were inapplicable because they did not apply to group reorganization programs.

4. Program Information Provided After the Program Announcement

Following the November 10, 1999 Program announcement, Allstate held meetings with agents on a regional basis to provide information about the Program. After the initial meetings, Allstate conducted additional regional and local meetings with' agents to further discuss the details of the Program. Although agents were not permitted to ask questions at the initial November meeting, Allstate managers took questions and provided answers at many of the subsequent regional meetings.

In addition, Allstate provided each employee agent with a detailed package of written materials regarding the Program. Each package included a Program Information Booklet that explained the Program and the Program options, as well as a copy of the Release, copies of the R3001S and R3001C booklets explaining the impact of conversion on agent benefits and descriptions of the EA benefit plans, *345 and other information. Each employee agent also received a personalized information worksheet estimating the amounts that the agents would receive under each of the options. Notably, the personalized information worksheets did not identify the amount each agent would receive in base severance if they did not sign the Release, nor did they identify any estimate of what an agent could or would receive from an Allstate-approved buyer for selling his or her book of business. Moreover, Allstate did not quantify the value of the benefits that employee agents were losing as a result of the conversion to the R3001 contract. Instead, the worksheet directed agents to perform this calculation on their own on a designated space on the form.

Allstate also gave each employee agent an Informational Notice, dated November 16, 1999, that purported to explain the Release requirement for the EA Option, Sale Option, or Enhanced Severance Option. The Notice stated, in its entirety, the following:

NOTICE REGARDING THE “PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE” GROUP REORGANIZATION PROGRAM FOR R830 AND R1500 AGENTS (THE “PROGRAM”) ELECTION FORM AND GENERAL RELEASE AND WAIVER AGREEMENT (“RELEASE”); EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION NOTICE, AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Please note the following specific items,

a.Each option chosen under the Program contains specific payments, benefits, limitations and requirements You should review carefully the “Preparing For the Future”— R830 and R1500 Agent Information Booklet For the Group Reorganization Program (“Program Information Booklet”) and all other information given to you in connection with the Program, including the Release and ADEA Waiver Information attached to this Notice, before you make our decision. Please note also in making your election that the Exclusive Agency program, like other Allstate programs, is subject to change in the future to meet future business needs.

b. You have more than 45 days from the date of this Notice, or until June 1, 2000 (or in Delaware, December 1, 2000), to consider whether to accept one of the options available under the Program.

c. If you elect an option under the Program and sign the Release, you will then have seven days after signing to change your mind and revoke the Release (15 days in Minnesota).

d. Your employment as an Allstate Agent and your R830 Agent Compensation Agreement or R1500 Agent Employment Agreement shall terminate no later than the close of business on June 30, 2000 (or if in Delaware, no later than close of business on December 31, 2000).[] This constitutes any notice suggested or required pursuant to any federal, state, or local law. You may contact our Regional Human Resources Manager if you have any questions regarding this. Details regarding our ability to terminate your employment earlier under the Program are discussed in the Program Information Booklet and related materials.

If you sign the Release, you will be waiving your rights to any claims or potential claims arising out of your employment, termination of employment or transition to independent contractor status which have been, or *346 could be filed against Allstate, or its affiliates pursuant to any local, state or federal law. Therefore, we advise you to consult with an attorney before you elect one of the options available to you and release and waive any legal claims.

As noted in the Program Information Booklet, in order to be eligible for the enhanced severance pay or other compensation or benefits available under the Program, except for base severance pay, you must submit the Release properly addressed and postmarked or received by Allstate no later than June 1, 2000 (or if in Delaware, December 1, 2000). If you wish to receive only base severance pay, under the terms of the Agent Transition Severance Plan you are not required to sign the Release, but you should submit instead the Base Severance Pay Election Form properly addressed and postmarked or received by Allstate no later than June 1, 2000 (or if in Delaware, December 1, 2000). Please mail or hand deliver the Release or Base Severance Pay Election Form to your Regional Human Resource Manager. Failure to submit either form by the deadline noted above shall be viewed as an election of the base severance pay option only.

(Heinz Deck, Ex. 62 (“Informational Notice”) (emphasis in original).)

From November 1999 through June 2000, agents could submit questions to their agency manager, then to their local HR manager, and finally to Allstate’s 800-number resolution line. Allstate identified between 500-600 agency managers and 13-14 local Human Resources managers as persons who would answer questions from employee agents about the Program. Agency managers were provided with uniform materials to answer questions and were instructed to stick to Allstate’s script. Allstate then provided R830 and R1500 agents with eleven sets of Questions and Answers regarding various aspects of the Program that were generated from agent inquiries. In total, there were more than 230 Questions and Answers provided to agents.

5. The Release

As noted above, in connection with the announcement of the Program and the provision of the Informational Notice in November 1999, agents also received a copy of the Release. The Release was three-pages long, including a signature page. The Release and Waiver Provision stated:

In return for the consideration that I am receiving under the Program, I hereby release, waive, and forever discharge Allstate Insurance Company, its agents, parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, employees, officers, shareholders, successors, assigns, benefits plans, plan administrators, representatives, trustees and plan agents (“Allstate”), from any and all liability, actions, charges, causes of action, demands, damages, entitlements or claims for relief or remuneration of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, or whether previously asserted or unasserted, stated or unstated, arising out of, connected with, or related to, my employment and/or the termination of my employment and my R830 or R1500 Agent Agreement with Allstate, or my transition to independent contractor status, including, but not limited to, all matters in law, in equity, in contract, or in tort, or pursuant to statute, including any claim for age or other types of discrimination prohibited under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the Illinois Hu *347 man Rights Act, and the West Virginia Human Rights Act as those acts have been amended, or any other federal, state, or local law or ordinance or the common law. I further agree that if any claim is made in my behalf with respect to any matter released and waived above, I hereby waive any rights I may have with respect thereto and agree not to take any payments or other benefits from such claim. I understand that this release and waiver does not apply to any future claims that may arise after I sign this Release or to any benefits to which I am entitled in accordance with any Allstate plan subject to ERISA by virtue of my employment with Allstate prior to my employment termination date.

(Heinz Deck, Ex. 186 (“Release”), at ARI 004101.)

The next section of the Release states:

I acknowledge that:

(a) I have read this Release, and I understand its legal and binding effect. I am acting voluntarily and of my own free will in executing this Release.

(b) I have had the opportunity to seek, and I was advised in writing to seek the advice of an attorney prior to signing this Release....

(c) I was given at least 45 days to consider the terms of the Program, including this Release, before signing it. I understand that I may make an election under the Program before forty-five (45) days, but I am under no obligation to do so.

(d) If I am a Minnesota, California, North Dakota, or South Dakota agent or resident, I acknowledge that I have reviewed the disclosures and agree to such statements relevant to me as discussed below.

(Id.)

The Release then goes on to provide information regarding the right to revoke or rescind, as follows:

I understand that if I sign this Release, I can change my mind and revoke it within seven days after signing it. I understand that the Release and Waiver set forth in the first paragraph and the consideration available under the Program above will not be effective until after this seven-day period has expired .... I understand that a decision to revoke or rescind within such period should be submitted in writing to my Human Resource Manager. If I do not revoke within the seven-day period discussed above ..., then the Release will become fully effective.

(Id.)

The Release further requires the signer to acknowledge receipt of information about the Program:

On the date that I received a copy of this Release, I also received a copy of the Program Information Booklet, and other written information which includes a description of:

(a) the group of Agents covered by the Program, the eligibility factors of the Program, and any time limits and conditions applicable to the Program and method used in arriving at the amount of consideration offered; and

(b) the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible and selected for the Program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification, who are not eligible and not selected for the Program.

(Id. at ARI 004102.)

Finally, following some state-specific announcements, the Release provides an Election of Option and Signature section:

*348 Election of Option and Acceptance of Release and Waiver

I have read and understand the Release, as well as the materials describing the Program, including the Program Information Booklet. I voluntarily make the following election (choose one):

I understand that my employment as an Allstate Agent and R830 and R1500 Agent Agreement will terminate on or before June 30, 2000 (or if in Delaware, December 31, 2000). I accept the Program and agree to be bound by its terms and the terms of this Release, including the Release and Waiver set forth above by choosing one of the following options: ... [list of options described above]

(Id. at ARI 004103.)

Allstate’s corporate designee, Mr. Hutton, conceded that without the Release, Allstate would not have moved forward with the Preparing for the Future Program. The Release was drafted by Allstate and the terms were completely nonnegotiable. Allstate further made clear that it would not accept any signed Releases that were marked up in any way, either with language crossed our or additional terms or notes added to the Release by hand. Indeed, Plaintiffs Romero, Kelly, T. Kearney, and Wiktor submitted Releases to their managers with modifications and Allstate declined to accept them.

6. The OWBPA Disclosure

Also in November 1999, Allstate provided its agents with a written document entitled “Age Discrimination in Employment CADEA) Waiver Information.” This document was issued in an effort by Allstate to comply with the requirement of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1)(H), that employers seeking a release of ADEA claims as part of an employment termination program provide the employees with the job titles and ages of those selected, and those that are not selected, for the program. Under that statute, the list of individuals not eligible or selected for the program must include only individuals “in the same job classification or organization unit” as those employees who are eligible or selected for the program. Id.

Allstate’s document stated:

All Allstate R830 and R1500 Agents are eligible for the options described in the “Preparing For The Future” — R830 and R1500 Agent Information Booklet For the Group Reorganization Program (“Program Information Booklet”), except Montana and New Jersey Agents who will be covered in separate programs with different options available to them. Please consult the Program Information Booklet for more detailed information about the Program.

(Heinz Deck, Ex. 74 (“Age Discrimination in Employment Waiver Information”), at ARI 003839.) The document went on to list, by contract, the number of agents from each age that were eligible and selected for the Program and the number of agents from each age that were not-eligible and not selected for the Program. The document remarked that nine R830 and eleven R1500 agents from Montana were not selected for the Program, and that 175 R830 agents from New Jersey were not selected for the Program. The document did not disclose (a) that R830 and R1500 employee agents in West Virginia hired on or after June 8,1984 were “not eligible and not selected” for the Program; (b) that at least four R830 employee agents from other states did not have their contracts terminated; (c) and that Allstate’s associate and R3000 agents were “not eligible and *349 not selected” for the Program. 6 Moreover, in February 2000, subsequent to the issuance of this document, Montana agents, who were listed on the original document as “not eligible and not selected,” became eligible and selected for the Program. Only the Montana R830 and R1500 agents received an updated February 2000 OWB-PA disclosure listing them as “eligible and selected.” Ultimately, the document indicates that 6,526 agents were made eligible and selected for the Program.

7. State-Specific Issues

a.New Jersey

As of October 1999, the average age of the R830 agents employed by Allstate New Jersey was fifty-nine years old. Allstate determined that New Jersey employee agents in the Program were ineligible for inclusion in the Program because (1) they were employed by Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, a separate company under a different management structure and compensation system than the rest of the employee agents in the United States and (2) New Jersey had unique state insurance withdrawal laws, which could have been triggered in the event of a decrease in the number of agencies in New Jersey.

b.Montana

Allstate considered Montana agents for the Program and listed them as not eligible and not selected on the OWBPA disclosure. Allstate avers that it listed them as ineligible on the November 16, 1999 disclosure because of certain unidentified Montana state laws. By February 2000, however, Allstate ultimately determined that Montana agents were eligible for the Program. On February 15, 2000, Allstate included Montana agents in the Program and distributed the Program materials with an updated disclosure to the Montana agents. The Montana-specific version of the Preparing for the Future Information Booklet informed Montana agents that they had until September 1, 2000 to consider whether to accept one of the Options available under the Program and that their contracts would be terminated no later than September 30, 2000. Thereafter, Montana agents were moved to the eligible category in the revised ADEA Waiver Information distributed only to Montana agents.

c.West Virginia

West Virginia employees who entered into their Allstate contracts on or after June 8, 1984 could not be terminated as part of the Program. Allstate nonetheless included them as eligible because each of them was, according to Allstate, offered consideration in exchange for entering into the Release. In turn, it included the ages of West Virginia employee agents hired on or after June 8, 1984 in the list of eligible agents on the OWBPA disclosure.

d.Delaware

Under a Delaware statute requiring twelve months’ notice to terminate an insurance agency contract, Delaware agents were given until December 1, 2000 to sign the Release or have their relationship with Allstate terminated. Thus, the Delaware-specific version of the Preparing for the Future Information Booklet informed Delaware agents that they had until December 1, 2000 to consider whether to accept one of the Options available under the Program and that their contracts would be *350 terminated no later than December 31, 2000.

8. Alleged Misrepresentations by Allstate about the Program

a. Confidentiality and Non-Compete Restrictions

Allstate informed agents that Allstate customer lists were the property of Allstate and that the names, addresses, and ages of these customers were confidential information and the exclusive property of Allstate. Specifically, in a March 23, 2000 set of Questions and Answers (“Q & As”) regarding the Program and Release, Allstate explained:

Q: If an agent ends his/her agency relationship and goes to work selling a non-insurance product, can the agent contact his/her prior Allstate customers regarding the new product?

A. No. Although this is not a violation of the noncompete provision, it is a violation of the confidentiality provision. The Allstate customer list is Allstate’s property and cannot be used by a former agent for any purpose including marketing non-insurance products.

(Declaration of Erica B. Zolner (“Zolner Decl.”), Ex. 102 (“Preparing for the Future Questions and Answers # 8”), Q20 at ARI 094111.) Another Q & A, issued on June 7, 2000, stated:

Q: Can a former agent keep a list of his/her Allstate customers and, after the non-compete period has elapsed, use that list to contact them for the purpose of selling insurance or other products?

A. No. This would be a violation of the confidentiality provision contained in the agent’s agreement and the Agent Transition Severance plan (If the agent selected the enhanced severance option). A former agent can never use a list of Allstate customers for any purpose regardless of how much time has passed since the agency relationship ended. All customer lists are considered confidential information and are the exclusive property of Allstate.

(Zolner Deck, Ex. 156 (“Preparing for the Future Questions and Answers # 10”), Q1 at ARI 090472.) If agents eligible for the Program left Allstate, they could only sell products or services to Allstate customers if a “customer initiate[d] contact with his/ her prior agent” or “if the customer responds to general advertising that is not considered a solicitation.” (Id. Q4 at ARI 090473.) Both the R830 and R1500 established the confidential nature of customer lists and contained a mandate that when an employee leaves Allstate, all records pertaining to Allstate policyholders shall be returned to Allstate and not be divulged. Neither contract, however, contained an express non-competition agreement prohibiting contact with former clients for commercial purposes.

b. Rehire Policy

Plaintiffs claim that, on the day the Program was announced and thereafter, Allstate represented to employees and agents that employee agents who were terminated could find employment elsewhere in the company. Plaintiffs also allege that local managers made similar statements about the opportunity for re-employment and encouraged employee agents to apply. In fact, some Plaintiffs actually applied and interviewed for non-agent positions at Allstate, but were not hired. Allstate contends, however, that these new job opportunities referenced non-agent employees who were terminated as part of a reduction in force, rather than R830/R1500 employee agents eligible for the Program. It *351 further explains that it did not begin to consider a potential rehire policy related to the Program until September 2000.

It is undisputed that, on September 26, 2000, Allstate formally adopted and implemented the Rehiring Moratorium. This Moratorium prohibited Allstate from offering re-employment to former employee agents who left Allstate as a result of the Program, and that such former employee agents would be eligible for re-employment when they reached the one year anniversary of their termination or were no longer receiving enhanced severance payments, whichever was longer. This policy had the effect of preventing any employee agent who left Allstate as a result of the Program from satisfying the continuous service requirement that would entitle them to early retirement and/or the “beef up” provisions for purposes of pension benefits. Indeed, Allstate took the position that a former employee agent’s service as an R3001 exclusive agent did not count towards the continuous service requirement to be eligible for retiree medical or life insurance benefits. Nor could an employee agent who converted to the R3001 agent contract either grow into the retiree medical benefits or participate in the subsidized retiree medical benefits while he/she was an EA agent.

The Moratorium was a change in Allstate’s policy. From January 1, 1990 to June 1, 2000, former employee agents— other than retirees — whose records of pri- or employment were satisfactory, were eligible for re-employment with Allstate and did not have to wait any period after separation from Allstate before being considered for rehire. Notably, non-agent employees terminated in reductions-in-force announced in November 1999, at the same time as the Program, were able to rejoin Allstate immediately, consistent with the company’s normal rehire policy.

c. Commission Rates

As part of the Program, Allstate provided each R830/R1500 agent a personalized information worksheet. In several of the Plaintiffs’ worksheets, Allstate represented that the commission income paid to the agents under the R3001 contract was the equivalent to and/or exceeded the combined commission and OEA reimbursements that employee agents previously received under either an R830 or R1500 contract. Plaintiffs contend that the same thing happened with many if not all of the terminated employee agents. These worksheets did not quantify the value of the benefits that employee agents were losing as a result of the conversion to the R3001 contract.

In addition, Allstate did not advise employee agents that Allstate intended to reduce commissions paid to R3001 agents and Plaintiffs contend that, during the time that agents were deciding among their choices under the Program, Allstate affirmatively represented that it was not planning on cutting commissions. Allstate avers, however, that it did not first begin to consider commission rate changes for Exclusive Agents until October 2001, at which time it announced to all Exclusive Agents that it would begin reviewing agent revenue and compensation. On September 25, 2002, Allstate gave notice to Exclusive Agents that commission changes would take effect on January 1, 2003. Allstate ultimately reduced commission rates for Exclusive Agents on that date, at which point the new property commission rates payable to R3001 agents went from twenty percent to ten percent. Allstate denies that it had been evaluating commission rate reductions since work began on the Program. Plaintiffs produce evidence, on the other hand, that beginning in the summer of 1999, each of Allstate’s analyses assumed some reduction in the commission *352 rates. Indeed, a change of commission rate beginning in 2001 was presented to the Board of Directors on November 9, 1999 — just one day before the Program was announced — but there is no evidence that that particular commission rate discussion was ever implemented.

d. Expected Results for R3001 Agents

Allstate informed Plaintiffs on numerous occasions that they would be required to meet certain business objectives as R3001 Exclusive Agents, but, according to Plaintiffs, Allstate did not disclose that it would hold agents to significantly higher standards under the R3001 contract than under the R830 or R1500 contracts. Allstate’s Program Information Booklet provided that R3001 agents “will be expected to achieve certain results.” (Heinz Deck, Ex. 52 (“Program Information Booklet”), at ARI 000806.) Agents were reviewed periodically and if an agency did not achieve the Expected Results, the agency had twenty-four months to effectively address the problem in order to avoid termination. Allstate claims that agents that it made agents aware of the precise sales targets during EA conversion meetings.

On August 9, 1999, prior to the announcement of the Program, the Channel Integration Team had another “Winning in the New Century” meeting, at which time the team recommended placing five percent of agencies on probation each year for not meeting its new expected results. Under that plan, the underperforming or “GAP” agencies would have six months to improve and meet newly-imposed quotas or they would receive a ninety-day termination notice. Although Plaintiffs claim that agents were never informed of this plan, Allstate asserts that this portion of the presentation was never implemented and, thus, there was no plan for Allstate to share with agents.

Nonetheless, for the year 2000, Allstate evaluated agents based on expected results and those agents who did not meet the expectations were notified that they were expected to address the deficiencies. Beginning in late 2001, on a quarterly basis, Allstate sent notices to the worst performers in each region informing them that they faced termination unless they demonstrated sufficient improvement in the next quarter. In addition, it sent notices to the next lowest performers that their jobs were in danger. According to Plaintiffs, they did not anticipate such stringent standards.

e. Allstate’s Level of Control Over Exclusive Agents

Allstate told agents that “R3001 Exclusive Agents have more freedom and flexibility in operating their agencies.” (Mee-han Deck, Ex. 141 (“November 16, 1999 Preparing for the Future Presentation”), at ARI 000327.) Allstate further explained this statement to agents in the November 1999 Agent Presentation by stating that “EAs have greater tax planning flexibility,” and EAs have “total freedom to decide who to hire, how many people to hire, and what type of relationship to have with them.” (Id.) In comparison, “NOAs have limitations on deducti-bility of unreimbursed employee business expenses,” NOA “[sjupport staff and rent expenses must be within available OEA,” and “NOAs may only secure support staff through an approved staffing vendor.” (Id.) Moreover, Exclusive Agents had some control over their office hours. Indeed, when the EA Program was first introduced, R3001 agents had significantly more control over their hours.

The EA contract after the announcement of the Program was somewhat different. Via letter dated January 17, 2000, Allstate expressly informed agents that, effective March 20, 2000, agencies would *353 be expected to be open a minimum of forty-four hours per week and must be open during the “core hours” of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. (Zolner Deck, Ex. 176 (“January 17, 2000 Agency Service Standards Memorandum”), at ARI 40444.) In addition, agencies needed to remain open at least four additional hours, to be scheduled at the agents’ discretion. (Id.) R3001 agents also had to use Allstate computers and equipment and forward their business phone calls to a centralized “call center” when the agency was closed. (Id.) Additionally, employee agents were required to attend periodic “training sessions” to ensure that they had the necessary skills. (Id.) Many Plaintiffs felt as if they were not receiving the entrepreneurial benefits that they were promised.

C. The Romero Plaintiffs

1. General Information

Plaintiffs, in this case, were all Allstate employee agents as of June 30, 2000. Plaintiff Gene R. Romero was, on that date, fifty-one years of age and had been employed by Allstate for more than thirteen years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Joseph L. Benoit was forty-eight years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than eighteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff James T. Beer was forty-one years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than nineteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Roger T. Boyd was fifty-five years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than twelve years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Richard A. Carrier was forty-two years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than nineteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Paul R. Cobb was fifty-two years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than fifteen years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Craig K. Crease was forty-eight years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than seventeen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Sylvia Kelly was fifty-four years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than nineteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Dwight English was fifty-three years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than eleven years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Ronald Harper was forty-eight years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than ten years under an R 1500 contract. Plaintiff Michael Kearney was forty-five years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than sixteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Thomas A. Kearney was forty-nine years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than twenty-one years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Larry H. Lankford, Sr. Was fifty-three years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than twenty-eight years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff David C. Lawson was fifty-seven years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than fourteen years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Nathan R. Littlejohn was fifty-one years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than nine years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Rebecca R. Mas-lowski was fifty years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than sixteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Craig A. Millison was fifty-two years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than thirteen years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff James E. Moorehead was fifty-three years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than sixteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Edwin T. Murray, III was forty-four years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than fifteen years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Carolyn Penzo was fifty-three years old and had been *354 employed by the company for more than thirty-one years, twelve of which were under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Christopher L. Perkins was forty-one years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than sixteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Richard E. Peterson was fifty-one years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than sixteen years under an R880 contract. Plaintiff James P. Pilchak was fifty-four years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than thirty-one years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Paula Reinerio was forty-five years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than ten years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Paula M. Schott was fifty-eight years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than eighteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Paul L. Shirley was fifty-seven years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than nine years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Donald L. Trgo-vich was fifty-six years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than seventeen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Richard S. Wandner was fifty-one years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than seventeen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff Timothy Weis-man was forty years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than eleven years under an R1500 contract. Plaintiff Anthony Wiktor was forty-two years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than sixteen years under an R830 contract. Plaintiff John W. Willman was forty-nine years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than twenty-six years under an R830 contract. Finally, Plaintiff Ralph J. Wolverton was forty-six years old and had been employed by Allstate for more than seventeen years under an R830 contract. Many, but not all of the Plaintiffs attended college and have business or professional degrees.

Many of the Plaintiffs mortgaged their homes, depleted their savings and 401 (k)s and invested significant amounts of money into their agencies. In addition, many Plaintiffs had their family members working in their agencies for little to no compensation. Multiple Plaintiffs contend that they did so at Allstate’s urging and under a belief that they had a proprietary interest and the job security to realize long-term returns on those investments. Allstate, on the other hand, contends that Plaintiffs’ expenditures of out-of-pocket funds were to increase sales and income from commission, not because of any vested interest in the business they wrote as agents.

A multitude of Plaintiffs believed that they had no other job to fall back on, given their age and length of service with Allstate. Moreover, during their tenure, Plaintiffs were contractually barred from doing any work other than for Allstate without Allstate’s written consent. As employee agents, Plaintiffs also had contractual non-compete covenants that barred them for soliciting or selling insurance in certain areas and to certain people. Specifically, the R830 contract provided:

For a period of two years immediately following the termination of your employment under this agreement, you agree that you will not solicit or sell insurance of any kind:

(A) with respect to any person, company or organization to whom you previously sold an Allstate policy, or

(B) within one mile from any Allstate location from which you solicited or sold insurance during the year immediately preceding such termination.

(Heinz Deck, Ex. 10 (“R830 Agreement”), Part Four, § XIII.) The R1500 contract stated:

*355 Covenant Not To Compete: Following the termination of this Agreement, you agree that, for a period of one year following termination, you will not solicit the purchase of products or services in competition with those sold by the Company:

(1) with respect to any person, company or organization to whom you sold insurance or other products or services on behalf of the Company and who is a customer of the Company at the time of termination of the Agreement;

(2) with respect to any person, company or organization who is a customer of the Company at the time of termination of this Agreement and whose identity was discovered as a result of our status as a Company employee or as a result of your access to proprietary information of the Company; or

(3) from any office or business site located within one mile of any Company location from which you solicited or sold insurance or other products or services during the year immediately preceding termination of this Agreement.

(Heinz Decl., Ex. 11 (“R1500 Agreement”), ¶ 13.) These restrictions posed a problem for the many Plaintiffs who had leased the office in their own name, or even purchased the building in which their office was located, since the non-compete provisions precluded them from selling insurance in those buildings. Although Allstate had originally told agents that if they refused to sign the Release, then they would be responsible for the remaining lease payments on their offices, Allstate modified that requirement in February 2000 and agreed to stand in for an agent’s lease payment obligations if the agent chose the Base Severance Option. Nonetheless, Allstate maintained that it owned the employee agents’ phone numbers and that it would preclude agents from using those numbers if they left Allstate without signing the Release, even though the phone number was in the agent’s name and paid for by the agent.

2. Plaintiffs’ Consultations Regarding the Program and Release

A majority of the Plaintiffs consulted with an attorney prior to selecting an Option under the Program and entering into the Release, and numerous Plaintiffs discussed the Release with attorneys at the EEOC. Certain Plaintiffs did not consult an attorney regarding the Program and Release, several of whom indicated that they believed it was futile and would not do any good to consult an attorney because they felt that they had no choice but to sign the Release. It is undisputed that the terms of the Release were non-negotiable and Allstate would not accept any Release that was modified in any way. Many Plaintiffs also consulted with accountants prior to signing the Release or making a selection among the Program Options, including Plaintiffs Bever, Carrier, Crews-Kelly, English, Michael Kearney, Thomas Kearney, Maslowski, Millison, Moorehead, Reinerio, Schott, Shirley, Trgovich, Wand-ner, and Wiktor, although they did not necessarily discuss the precise Program Options with their accountant.

3. Plaintiffs’ Program Option Selections

Thirty-one of the Romero I and Romero II Plaintiffs signed the Release upon electing one of the first three Program Options. One named Plaintiff, Joseph Benoit, chose the Base Severance Option, declined to sign the Release, and left Allstate’s service.

a. The EA Option

Seventeen of the Plaintiffs took the first option, the EA Option, including Plaintiffs Bever, Carrier, Cobb, Crease, Harper, Mi *356 chael Kearney, Lawson, 7 Littlejohn, Mas-lowski, Millison, Murray, Penzo, Peterson, Weisman, Wiktor, Wittman, and Wolver-ton. In connection with taking that Option, all of them had to sign the Release. Each of these Plaintiffs received a conversion bonus of at least $5,000 — some received more — -as part of their transition. In addition, each had the opportunity to enter the EA Program and convert to independent contractor status.

Plaintiffs who took this option and converted to the R3001 contract for independent contractors acquired a transferable economic interest in the books of business they serviced that could be sold to an Allstate approved buyer after two years as an EA. Thirteen of the Plaintiffs who selected the EA Option later sold the economic interest in the books of business they produced and serviced, and kept the sales proceeds. The sales, which occurred between 2002 and 2012, ranged in amounts from $100,000 to $910,000.

Allstate forgave Plaintiffs who selected the EA Option for any outstanding OEA advance they owed to Plaintiff. The greatest amount forgiven was $1,250 and the mean among the seventeen Plaintiffs was about $250. For seven of the Plaintiffs who converted to the EA Program, there were no OEA advances to forgive,

b. The Sale Option

Twelve Plaintiffs signed the Release and elected the second Option of the Program — the Sale Option. These individuals included Plaintiffs Crews-Kelly, English, Thomas Kearney, Lankford, Moorehead, Perkins, James Pilchak, Romero, Schott, Shirley, Trgovich, and Wandner. These agents acquired a transferable economic interest in the books of business they had produced and serviced as R830 and R1500 agents after serving as Exclusive Agents for only thirty days. The sales proceeds ranged in amounts from $75,000 to $435,000. Several of those sales agreements included non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants with the purchasing entity.

Plaintiffs who selected the Sale Option received at least a $5,000 conversion bonus in connection with their transition to independent contractor status. Allstate also forgave these Plaintiffs for an outstanding OEA advance they owed to Allstate. The greatest amount forgiven was $42,000 and nothing was forgiven for six Plaintiffs.

c. The Enhanced Severance Option

Two Plaintiffs signed the Release and elected the Enhanced Severance Option following the announcement of the Program: Roger Boyd and Paula Reinerio. Boyd received an enhanced severance payment of $42,462 and Reinerio received an enhanced severance payment of $68,315, each of those payable over the course of twenty-four equal monthly installments. Plaintiffs also assumed a two-year non-compete restriction, as well as an ongoing non-solicitation obligation.

For these Plaintiffs, Allstate forgave any outstanding OEA advance they owed Allstate. The value of each agent’s OEA advance was then included as taxable compensation in the agent’s final employee payment. Although Plaintiffs were permitted to submit unreimbursed business expenses to Allstate in order to offset all or a portion of the advance that would be counted as taxable income, Plaintiffs dis *357 pute that Allstate ever told them that fact. Nevertheless, Plaintiff Reinerio submitted business expenses to Allstate to offset her OEA advance.

d. The Base Severance Option

Overall, less than twenty-five agents elected not to enter into a Release. The only Plaintiff included among that group is Joseph Benoit. Benoit declined to sign the Release, elected the Base Severance Option, and received a thirteen-week severance payment of approximately $23,200, paid out in six equal monthly installments. Had the other Plaintiffs taken this option, their base severance would have ranged anywhere from approximately $7,600 to approximately $116,000, with a mean figure of about $29,000.

4. Rationales’ for Plaintiffs’ Program Selections

Allstate characterizes Plaintiffs’ various Program option selections as rationally-based, calculated choices depending on their financial needs at the time and what worked best for themselves and their families. In support of these allegations, Allstate cites to various portions of Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony. In response, however, Plaintiffs cite to other portions of their testimony to demonstrate that although none of the options were optimal, they were forced into making an election and taking the option that would best provide for their families. Indeed, it is agreed' that many Plaintiffs simply did not have the money to start over or support their families if they opted to leave Allstate under the Base Severance Option.

What remains undisputed is that many Plaintiffs spent their careers building up their customer base and that many of Plaintiffs’ customers were people whom they had brought to Allstate because of their pre-existing relationships with them or because of their efforts to develop them as clients. These customers included family members, neighbors, business associates, church members, parents of friends of his/her children, parents of children on sports teams that the employee agent had sponsored, and other friends and associates developed from many years spent in the communities they served. Plaintiffs who left Allstate could have no business contact, even to sell non-insurance products, with these former customers unless the customer initiated contact with the former agent or the customer responded to general advertising that was not considered a solicitation. Allstate advised all agents eligible for the Program that it intended to enforce the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions if a violation occurred.

5. EEOC Charges

As a legal matter, agents could file EEOC charges against Allstate regardless of whether they entered into the Release. Nothing in the Release, however, explicitly instructs that employee agents who signed it could file a charge with the EEOC related to the termination of their employment or challenge the validity and enforceability of the Release. At least one Plaintiff— Plaintiff Kelly — withdrew an EEOC Charge that she filed on June 5, 2000 because she believed the Release barred it, but she re-filed on August 25, 2000. Allstate did, however, advise Plaintiff Gene R. Romero that he could file EEOC charges. Ultimately, all Plaintiffs filed charges against Allstate with the EEOC. Those agents were still given the full benefits of their chosen Program Option.

Plaintiff Romero filed his charge of discrimination with the EEOC on March 24, 2000. In a May 2, 2000 letter directed to Defendants Allstate and Liddy, the EEOC preliminarily ruled that Allstate’s Release requirement was unlawful and requested that Allstate suspend its use under the *358 Program. In responsive letters dated May 15, 2000 and May 30, 2000, Allstate rejected the EEOC’s assessment and urged the EEOC to reconsider its preliminary position. Allstate refused to suspend the release-signing requirement. On September 19, 2000, the EEOC issued a letter of determination that Allstate had violated the ADEA and other federal non-discrimination statutes by requiring that employee agents execute the Release as a condition of continuing in Allstate’s service as part of the Program.

D. Procedural History

In light of the EEOC’s finding, Plaintiffs initiated the action in federal court on August 1, 2001, and, on October 18, 2001, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“Romero I ”). The First Amended Complaint set forth seven Counts, as follows:

Count I sought a declaratory judgment (both individually and for the class) declaring the Release invalid under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1140 , the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 628 , and common law.

Count II alleged individual and class claims of interference with employment and retaliation in violation of Section 510 of ERISA with respect to the Plaintiffs’ attainment and receipt of pensions and benefits under various employee benefit plans.

Count III alleged individual and class claims for retaliation in violation of Section 510 of ERISA.

Count IV claimed “Discriminatory Termination and Retaliation in Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a) and (d)” for both individuals and the class.

Count V asserted individual and class claims for breach of the R830 contract, which governed the employment relationship between Allstate and a subclass of Plaintiffs.

Count VI alleged individual and class claims for breach of the R1500 contract, which governed the employment relationship between Allstate and a different subclass of Plaintiffs.

Count VII set forth individual and class claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

(Am. Compl. No. Civ.A.01-3894 (“Romero I”), ¶¶ 132-189.)

About four months later, the Romero I Plaintiffs, joined by four other Plaintiffs, brought a separate ERISA action against Allstate and the Administrator of the Agents Pension Plan (“Romero II”). In Romero II, Plaintiffs sought the recovery of retirement benefits that they were improperly denied because Allstate and the Administrator: (a) violated the “anti-cutback” provisions of ERISA by improperly phasing out the beefed-up early retirement benefits and amending the requirements for retirement benefits under the Agents Pension Plan; and (b) violated the fiduciary duty requirements of ERISA by making material representations and omissions about Plaintiffs’ eligibility for retirement benefits. (Am. Compl., No. Civ.A.01-6746 (“Romero II”).)

Lastly, on December 27, 2001, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought its own action against Allstate alleging that Allstate unlawfully retaliated against all employee agents, in violation of the ADEA and other federal employment statutes, by refusing to permit them to continue as Allstate employees unless they signed the Release (“EEOC v. Allstate”). Like Plaintiffs, the EEOC seeks a declaratory judgment that the Release is invalid. (Am. Compl., No. Civ. A.01-7042 (“EEOC v. Allstate ”).)

*359 Discovery began in April 2002 and, over the course of the next several years, the parties engaged in extensive motion practice, including the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment and the debate over class certification issues. On March 30, 2004, the Honorable John Fullam, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entered a Declaratory Judgment holding, in part, that the Releases signed by the employee agents were voidable so long as the employee agents tendered back all benefits received in connection with signing those Releases (the “tender back” requirement). Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., Nos. Civ.A.01-3894, 01-6764, 01-7042, 2004 WL 692231 , at *3-4 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 30, 2004). Plaintiffs filed a timely motion for reconsideration challenging only the propriety of the “tender back” requirement imposed by the Court. While that reconsideration motion was still pending, Allstate filed a second motion for summary judgment in December of 2005, as to all of Plaintiffs’ underlying causes of action. That motion remained undecided until March 2007, when Judge Fullam announced his intentions to reverse his original finding as to the validity of the Releases. Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., Nos. Civ.A.01-3894, 01-6764, 01-7042, 2007 WL 906158 , at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 21, 2007). Ultimately, on June 20, 2007, Judge Fullam held that he erred in his 2004 Declaratory Judgment and vacated that decision. Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., Nos. Civ.A.01-3894, 01-6764, 01-7042, 2007 WL 1811197 , at *1 (E.D.Pa. Jun. 20, 2007). He further granted summary judgment in Allstate’s favor on the entirety of Plaintiffs’ actions in Romero I and Romero II, and in EEOC v. Allstate. Id.

On November 26, 2007, Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Reviewing the history of this case, the Third Circuit noted that Plaintiffs had not received the benefit of full discovery as to issues regarding the validity of the Releases, and determined that these issues were dispositive as to the rest of Plaintiffs’ claims. Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Fed.Appx. 785 , 793 (3d Cir.2009) (“The plaintiffs had a relative short period of class discovery, and ... are entitled to discovery that is responsive to their requests related to the specific release-related issues the plaintiffs raised with the district court in their response to its March 21, 2007 Order.”). The court went on to order that the District Court allow additional discovery and briefing, fully address whether the Releases are valid, and if the Releases are deemed valid, decide all of the underlying claims and issues. Id. at 794.

On January 29, 2010, after remand from the Court of Appeals in Romero I, the three cases were reassigned to the docket of the undersigned. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint in Romero I and, on July 28, 2010, this Court granted the requested leave, resulting in the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. This document set forth seven claims, as follows: (1) a request for a declaratory judgment on the invalidity of the Release under ERISA, the ADEA, and common law; (2) interference with employment and retaliation in violation of Section 510 on behalf of all Plaintiffs; (3) retaliation in violation of Section 510 on behalf of Plaintiffs who did not sign the Release; (4) discriminatory termination and retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a) and (d); (5) breach of the R830 contract; (6) breach of the R1500 contract; and (7) breach of fiduciary duty. (§ Am. Compl., Romero I, No. Civ.A. 01-3894.)

Consistent with the Third Circuit’s mandate, this Court then permitted discovery to proceed in bifurcated fashion, with the parties limited to discovery only on the *360 validity of the Release. During approximately the next three years, the parties engaged in this targeted discovery and related motion practice. On September 12, 2012, the Court consolidated Romero I, Romero II, and EEOC v. Allstate for administrative purposes. In compliance with the Court’s scheduling order, the parties began filing summary judgment motions in early April 2013. Briefing on those motions and related motions did not conclude until the end of August 2013. As of December 2013, this Court had ruled on all of the evidentiary motions associated with the summary judgment motions, leaving the latter motions ripe for judicial review. At issue presently are Plaintiffs and Allstate’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment as to the validity of the Release.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). A factual dispute is “material” only if it might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). For an issue to be “genuine,” a reasonable fact-finder must be able to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

On summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden of identifying evidence that it believes shows an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 145-46 (3d Cir.2004). It is not the court’s role to weigh the disputed evidence and decide which is more probative, or to make credibility determinations. Boyle v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir.1998) (citing Petruzzi’s IGA Supermkts., Inc. v. Darling-Del. Co. Inc., 998 F.2d 1224 , 1230 (3d Cir.1993)). Rather, the court must consider the evidence, and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)); Tigg Corp. v. Dow Corning Corp., 822 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir.1987).

Although the moving party must establish an absence of a genuine issue of material fact, it need not “support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent’s claim.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). It can meet its burden by “pointing out ... that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s claims.” Id. at 325 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 . If the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial,” summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 . Moreover, the mere existence of some evidence in support of the non-movant will not be adequate to support a denial of a motion for summary judgment; there must be enough evidence to enable a jury to reasonably find for the non-movant on that issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 .

Notably, these summary judgment rules do not apply any differently where there are cross-motions pending. Lawrence v. City of Phila., 527 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir.2008). As stated by the Third Circuit, “ ‘[cjross-motions are no more than a claim by each side that it alone is *361 entitled to summary judgment, and the making of such inherently contradictory claims does not constitute an agreement that if one is rejected the other is necessarily justified or that the losing party waives judicial consideration and determination whether genuine issues of material fact exist.’ ” Id. (quoting Rains v. Cascade Indus., Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d Cir.1968)).

III. DISCUSSION

The key issue before the Court in the present Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment is whether the Release signed by the Plaintiffs bars the substantive claims raised by the Second Amended Complaint in Romero I and the Amended Complaint in Romero II. This issue gives rise to two separate inquiries. The first question is whether the Release, if valid, would bar all of the claims raised by the two cases. Second, the Court must then consider whether the Release constitutes a valid and enforceable contract. The Court will address each issue separately. 8

A. Whether the Release Reaches Ml of The Claims Asserted in Romero I and Romero II

The parties initially dispute the scope of the Release and whether it is applicable to all of the claims at issue in Romero I and Romero II. Allstate argues that the Release covers all of Plaintiffs’ claims in both cases. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that the Release does not extend to ERISA claims in Romero I or Romero II. The Court finds that Allstate’s interpretation is correct and all asserted claims fall within the bounds of the Release.

1. Romero I Claims and Count II of Romero II

As a preliminary matter, the Release’s coverage of the claims in Romero I and Count II of Romero II is dictated by the law of the case doctrine. In Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Fed.Appx. 785 (3d Cir.2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overruled the decision by the District Court judge originally assigned to this matter, which found that the Release signed by the Plaintiffs was valid and barred all substantive claims. Id. at 794. In making this ruling, the Third Circuit stated:

If the release is valid, it bars the claims of the plaintiffs in Romero I, Count II of Romero II, and EEOC [v. Allstate]. The plaintiffs, however, did not have sufficient discovery into the facts surrounding the signing of the releases, or sufficient time to produce it, given the court’s about-face in 2007, and there is insufficient evidence in the record, let alone in the reasoning provided by the court, as to whether the releases were signed knowingly or voluntarily, or were unconscionable. If the releases are not valid, then the District Court needs to address a number of issues, namely the merits of all the claims in Romero II and the common law claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty in Romero I, that it must consider in the first instance. We will remand to the District Court for further discovery into the validity of the releases.

Id. at 790 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Later on in the opinion, the Third Circuit explained its holding on the scope of the Release as follows:

*362 If the release is valid, it bars the plaintiffs’ claims in Romero I, where the plaintiffs allege violations of the ADEA and ERISA, as well as common law claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It would also bar the claims in EEOC that Allstate retaliated against the plaintiffs in violation of the ADEA. All of these claims are covered by the broad language of the release, which specifically mentions both those statutes and common law claims. It also bars the plaintiffs’ claims in Count II of Romero II, where the plaintiffs claim violations of ERISA § 404, which provides an equitable remedy for a breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Id. at 793. Towards the end of its ruling, the appellate court again re-emphasized its position on the scope of the Release:

If, after discovery and briefing on these issues, the District Court determines that the releases are valid, then the claims in Romero I, Count II of Romero II, and EEOC are barred. If, however, the District Court determines that the releases are not valid, the District Court needs to address all of the underlying claims and issues that it did not decide in its June 20, 2007, Order, some of which we referred to above, namely, the common law claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and all the claims in Romero I.

Id. at 794 (emphasis added). Via a footnote, the Third Circuit then made clear that it was not ruling on whether the Release covered Counts I and III of Romero II. Specifically, it held:

Counts I and III of Romero II deal with the plaintiffs’ claims that Allstate’s amendment of its retirement plan violates the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA § 204(g). The language of the release is very broad and covers ERISA claims, other than those claims to “any benefits to which I am entitled in accordance with any Allstate plan subject to ERISA by virtue of my employment with Allstate prior to my employment termination date.” ... We do not decide whether Counts I and III of Romero II fit within this exception. Rather, if the release is valid, the District Court must consider on remand whether the claims in Counts I and III of Romero II are claims for benefits to which the plaintiffs were entitled in accordance 'with any Allstate ERISA plan.

Id. at 793 n. 11.

Reading this language as a whole, the Court finds that the Third Circuit intentionally and explicitly dictated that the broad language of the Release at issue covers all but Counts I and III of Romero II. Little is left to interpretation by the Third Circuit’s express statement that all common law, ADEA, and ERISA claims are “covered by the broad language of the release, which specifically mentions both those statutes and common law claims.” Id. at 793.

In both their Response to Allstate’s Motion for Summary Judgment and their Reply Brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs contend that the Third Circuit’s ruling is dicta and, thus, not the law of the case. They reason that the Third Circuit merely held that this Court “ ‘should reexamine the validity of the release, after [first] allowing further discovery into the facts surrounding the signing of the releases.’ ” (Pls.’ Resp. Opp’n Mot. Summ. J. 98 (quoting Romero, 344 Fed.Appx. at 793).) In addition, they assert that “any statements by the Third Circuit about the scope of the Release and what claims it may and may not cover were not essential to this holding that Plaintiffs are first entitled to additional discovery. And the Third Circuit’s statements about whether the Release covers *363 Plaintiffs’ § 1140 claim in Romero I and breach of fiduciary duty claim in Romero II certainly were not based upon a complete factual record or full briefing on the broad ‘any benefits’ exception to the Release.” (Pl.’s Resp. Opp’n Mot. Summ. J. 98.)

The Court finds no merit to this argument. The law of the case doctrine provides that “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that rule should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the litigation.” In the Matter of Resyn Corp., 945 F.2d 1279, 1281 (3d Cir.1991) (quotations omitted). In other words, “once an issue has been decided, parties may not relitigate that issue in the same case.” Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601 , 616 n. 4 (3d Cir.1998). It is equally well-established, however, that “[t]he doctrine does not apply to dicta.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington, Pa., 316 F.3d 392 , 397 n. 4 (3d Cir.2003).

The Third Circuit’s ruling as to the scope of the Release in this matter was clearly not dicta. On three separate occasions in the opinion, the court made the unequivocal and definitive ruling that the Release covered all the claims in Romero I and Count II of Romero II. Moreover, it went on explain the basis for its ruling by noting that the language of the Release was broad and specifically named the statutory and common law claims raised in the barred counts. The court then took care to expressly except out from its ruling Counts I and III of Romero II — an unnecessary step if the court did not intend to issue an express ruling on the scope of the Release.

To the extent that Plaintiffs contend that this conclusion was not essential to the Third Circuit’s ultimate holding, they are mistaken. The Third Circuit remanded the case with express instructions of what the District Court was required to do. Further discovery was ordered only as to the validity of the Release — nothing more. If the Release was ultimately deemed valid, then the District Court was only to decide whether Counts I and III of Romero II were covered since the other claims were clearly barred. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs contend that the ruling was based on an incomplete factual record and incomplete briefing, Plaintiffs fail to recognize that interpretation of unambiguous contracts are a matter of law for the court. Panther Mountain Lodge, Inc. v. Waymart Windfarm, L.P., No. Civ. A.08-755, 2010 WL 4942262 , at *3 (M.D.Pa. June 23, 2010). Thus, the Third Circuit acted well within its province when ruling on the scope of the Release.

In short, the Third Circuit unequivocally held that the Release at issue barred all but Counts I and III of Romero II. The appellate court remanded only for further consideration of whether the Release itself was valid and, if it was not, for substantive consideration of the underlying claims. Nothing in the Third Circuit opinion suggests that this holding was dicta or that it did not intend for its ruling on the scope of the Release to have precedential value. Bound by this ruling and by the law-of-the-case doctrine, this Court deems that if the Release is valid, it bars all the claims of Romero I and Count II of Romero II. 9

2. Counts I and III of Romero II

As noted above, the Third Circuit explicitly declined to decide whether or not the *364 Release, if valid, bars Plaintiffs’ claims in Counts I and III of Romero II. These claims deal with Plaintiffs’ claims that Allstate’s amendment of its retirement plan violates the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA § 204(g). Specifically, Count I states:

100. Each of the Converted Agent Plaintiffs provided compensated service to Allstate as an “employee agent” under an R830 or R1500 contract prior to July 1, 2000.

101. Upon the termination of their employment contracts as part of the Mass Termination Program, each of the Converted Agent Plaintiffs continued to provide compensated service to Allstate as an “exclusive agent independent contractor” pursuant to an R3001S contract.

102. Under the Pension Plan, any employee agent who completes twenty (20) years of continuous “service” with Allstate and who attains the age of 55 is entitled to receive early retirement benefits in the event he or she retires before reaching normal retirement age.

103. Under Allstate’s own interpretation of the Pension Plan (as well as its interpretation of the November 1991 amendments to that plan), and under section 402(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, any converted agent of Allstate who provides any kind of compensated service to Allstate following the termination of his or her employment contract with Allstate remains “in the service of Allstate” for purposes of determining eligibility for early retirement benefits.

104. The express terms of the Pension Plan (prior to the unlawful and invalid December 1994 amendments) state that “[a]ll service” with Allstate “shall count as Credited Service.” Accordingly, under the Pension Plan, any former employee agent of Allstate who, following the termination of his employment contract, continues to provide compensated “service” to the company under a contract creating an “exclusive agent independent contractor” relationship continues to accumulate “service” under the Pension Plan for purposes of determining eligibility for early retirement benefits.

105. Under the December 1994 amendments to the Pension Plan, Allstate purported to alter the eligibility requirements for obtaining early retirement benefits by only counting “service” that agents performed in their capacity as Allstate “employees” towards the fulfillment of those requirements and excluding any “service” they provided to the company as an “exclusive agent independent contractor.”

106. In imposing requirements that made it more difficult for participants to meet the eligibility requirements for obtaining early retirement benefits under the Pension Plan, the December 1994 amendments violated the “anti-cutback” rule embodied in 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g)(2).

107. Alternatively, even if “service” provided to Allstate as an “exclusive agent independent contractor” never counted as “service” for purposes of determining eligibility for early retirement benefits under the Pension Plan, the Converted Agent Plaintiffs are not truly “independent contractors.” *365 Since those plaintiffs began providing service to Allstate under the R3001S contract, Allstate has retained the right to control the manner and means through which they perform their jobs as “captive” agents. Moreover, since the time they converted to the R3001S contract, Allstate has actually exercised at least as much control over the Converted Agent Plaintiffs as it did prior to the purported termination of their employment status and R830 or R1500 contracts. Accordingly, at all pertinent times, all of the Converted Agent Plaintiffs have been “employees” of Allstate within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (6)

108. By amending the Pension Plan to no longer count all “service” which the converted agent plaintiffs provide, for purposes of determining eligibility for early retirement, Allstate has caused the Pension Plan to violate the “anti-cutback” rule embodied in section 204(g) of ERISA.

(Am. CompL, No. Civ.A.01-6764, ¶¶ 100-08.) Count III provides:

124. Under the Pension Plan (prior to the unlawful and invalid November 1991 amendments), any employee agent who completes twenty (20) years of “service” with Allstate is entitled to receive “beefed-up” early retirement benefits upon reaching 55 years of age.

125. In purporting to adopt the November 1991 amendments, and in “readopting” such amendments in December 1994 (retroactively to November 1991), Allstate purported to phase out and ultimately eliminate these “beefed-up” early retirement benefits by December 31,1998.

126.By amending the Pension Plan to phase out and eliminate “beefed-up” early retirement benefits for agents who have met or may in the future meet the eligibility requirements for early retirement, Allstate caused the Pension Plan to violate the “anti-cutback” rule embodied in 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g)(2).

(Id. ¶¶ 124-26.) In other words, these claims seek to “repeal or set aside” both a 1994 amendment and a 1991 amendment to the Allstate Agents Pension Plan (“Pension Plan”) wherein Allstate (a) purported to amend the Pension Plan to redefine “service” and then denied early retirement benefits to Plaintiffs who continued to work for Allstate after the Program under the R3001 contract; and (b) amended the Pension Plan to phase out “beefed up” early retirement benefits for employees who completed twenty years of service. Allstate now contends that these claims are barred by the Release, whereas Plaintiffs assert that (1) these claims are exempted by the unambiguous language of the Release; (2) to the extent that the Release is ambiguous, it should be interpreted against Allstate; (3) the ERISA claims in Romero II arose after the execution of the Release and, thus, are not covered; and (4) Plaintiffs cannot waive their claims for ERISA pension entitlements. The Court considers each argument individually.

a. Whether the Language of the Release Excepts Out the Claims or Is Ambiguous and Should Be Construed in Plaintiffs’ Favor

It is well settled that a claim for benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) is an assertion of a contractual right under the *366 terms of plan. Burstein v. Ret. Account Plan for Emps. of Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Found., 334 F.3d 365 , 381 (3d Cir.2003). As such, the written terms of the plan documents are controlling. In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefit “ERISA” Litig., 58 F.3d 896, 902 (3d Cir.1995). When a court considers claims under § 502(a)(1)(B), the plan is interpreted under principles of contract law. Kemmerer v. ICI Ams., Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 288 (3d Cir.1995). These principles require that a court first look to the plain language of the document and, if that language is clear, it must disregard outside evidence. Bill Gray Enters, v. Gourley, 248 F.3d 206, 218 (3d Cir.2001). Extrinsic evidence may be used to aid in the interpretation of ambiguous plan provisions, although it may not be used “ ‘to create an ambiguity where none exists.’ ” Gritzer v. CBS, Inc., 275 F.3d 291, 298 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting Int’l Union v. Skinner Engine Co., 188 F.3d 130 , 145 (3d Cir.1999)). Any ambiguities in a contract are construed against the drafter. In re F.H. McGraw & Co., 473 F.2d 465, 468 (3d Cir.1973).

In construing the terms of a release, like any contract, the court must read the document in its entirety, giving effect to all of the contractual language if at all possible. Whole Enchilada, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 581 F.Supp.2d 677, 689-90 (W.D.Pa.2008). “The Court should not consider individual terms unmoored from their context, but should instead consider the entire contractual provision to determine the intent of the parties.” NorFab Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 555 F.Supp.2d 505, 509 (E.D.Pa.2008). In addition, “ ‘[n]o provision within a contract is to be treated as surplusage or redundant if any reasonable meaning consistent with the other parts can be given to it.’ ” J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. v. Pilosi, 393 F.3d 356, 364 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting Sparler v. Fireman’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., 360 Pa.Super. 597 , 521 A.2d 433 , 438 n. 1 (1987)).

In the present case, the relevant language of the Release at issue states:

In return for the consideration that I am receiving under the Program, I hereby release, waive, and forever discharge Allstate Insurance Company, its agents, parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, employees, officers, shareholders, successors, assigns, benefits plans, plan administrators, representatives, trustees and plan agents (“Allstate”), from any and all liability, actions, charges, causes of action, demands, damages, entitlements or claims for relief or remuneration of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, or whether previously asserted or unasserted, stated or unstated, arising out of, connected with, or related to, my employment and/or the termination of my employment and my R830 or R1500 Agent Agreement with Allstate, or my transition to independent contractor status, including, but not limited to, all matters in law, in equity, in contract, or in tort, or pursuant to statute, including any claim for age or other types of discrimination prohibited under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the Illinois Human Rights Act, and the West Virginia Human Rights Act as those acts have been amended, or any other federal, state, or local law or ordinance or the common law. I further agree that if any claim is made in my behalf with respect to any matter released and waived above, I hereby waive any rights I may have with respect thereto and agree not to take any payments or other benefits from such claim. I understand that *367 this release and waiver does not apply to any future claims that may arise after I sign this Release or to any benefits to which I am entitled in accordance with any Místate plan subject to ERISA by virtue of my employment with Allstate prior to my employment termination date.

(Heinz Decl., Ex. 186 (“Release”) (emphasis added).)

Plaintiffs contend that the anti-cutback claims in Romero II seek equitable relief sufficient to cover their lost early retirement benefits. Such claims are based upon Allstate’s amendments to the Pension Plan that took place prior to the Program’s “employment termination date” and either made it more difficult to meet the eligibility requirements for obtaining early retirement benefits or eliminated certain retirement benefits. According to Plaintiffs, because these cutback claims merely seek benefits to which Plaintiffs are entitled, they are not subject to the Release.

Allstate, on the other hand, contends that the phrase “any benefits to which I am entitled in accordance with an Allstate plan subject to ERISA” refers only to vested benefits as opposed to accrued benefits. It goes on to reason that Counts I and III of Romero II do not seek “benefits” to which Plaintiffs are “entitled.” Rather, those claims seek to “repeal or set aside” a 1994 amendment and a 1991 amendment to the Pension Plan and, at best, attempt to recover accrued, not vested, benefits.

Based on a plain interpretation of the Release, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims in Counts I and III do not fall within the scope of the carve-out provision for two reasons. First, Counts I and III are not claims for “benefits” because the ERISA provision under which Plaintiffs bring these claims cannot be used for benefits claims. Second, even if Counts I and III can be construed as seeking “benefits,” they do not seek benefits “to which [the Plaintiffs are] entitled.”

(i) “Claim ... to Benefits”

Both Counts I and II set forth violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g), which provides that:

(1) The accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan, other than an amendment described in section 1082(d)(2) or 1441 of this title.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan amendment which has the effect of—

(A) eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy (as defined in regulations), or

(B) eliminating an optional form of benefit,

with respect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment shall be treated as reducing accrued benefits.

29 U.S.C.A. § 1054 (g).

Consistent with this statute, Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief in Romero II seeks the following:

A. That each of the proposed classes be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and/or (3), and that counsel for plaintiffs be designated and appointed as counsel for the classes;

B. That the practice of Allstate and the Administrator complained of herein be determined and adjudged to be in violation of the rights of plaintiffs and class members under ERISA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3);

C. That the Court issue a permanent injunction under ERISA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. *368 §§ 2201-2202 , compelling Allstate and the Administrator to:

(1) count any periods of service that converted and retired agents have provided to Allstate under the R3001 contract as “service” for purposes of determining their eligibility for early retirement benefits; and

(2) repeal or set aside the November 1991 and December 1994 plan amendments relating to early retirement and the “beef-up” retroactively to the dates those amendments were adopted, as a remedy for the statutory violations described in Counts I and III;

D. That the Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and all class members against:

(1) the Pension Plan and the Administrator pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3) for “make whole” or other equitable relief; and

(2) Allstate pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3) for “make whole” or other equitable relief, as a remedy for the violations of fiduciary obligations described in COUNT II.

E. That the Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and all class members against the Pension Plan pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B) after the Court has provided the relief set forth in paragraph C above.

F. That a constructive trust or equitable lien be imposed over Allstate’s assets sufficient to cover all losses suffered by the class members as a result of the violations of ERISA;

G. That plaintiffs and class members be awarded such other and further relief as may be found just and appropriate;

H. That plaintiffs and class members be granted their attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and the costs and expenses of this litigation, pursuant to applicable law; and

I.That the Court retain jurisdiction over Alstate, the Pension Plan and the Administrator until such time as it is satisfied that the remedied the practices [sic] complained of are remedied and are determined to be in full compliance with the law.

(Am. Compl., Romero II, No. Civ.A.01-6764, Prayer for Relief.)

Notably, in this Prayer for Relief, Plaintiffs rely primarily on 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3). This section provides that a civil action may be brought “by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3). It is well established that this section is limited to “traditional equitable relief” and may not be used to award “traditional legal relief (i.e., money damages).” Graden v. Conexant Sys., Inc., 496 F.3d 291, 300 (3d Cir.2007); see also Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248, 256-63 , 113 S.Ct. 2063 , 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993). A request for plain money damages — i.e., benefits — under § 1132(a)(3) is inappropriate and must be dismissed. See Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 490 , 116 S.Ct. 1065 , 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996); Eichorn v. AT & T Corp., 484 F.3d 644 , 655-56 (3d Cir.2007). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek relief under § 1132(a)(3), they have not asserted a “claim ... to benefits”

Plaintiffs offer two responses. First, they contend that the phrase “claims ... to any benefits” in the Release’s carve-out does not confine the carve-out to only claims for monetary damages under *369 ERISA, but rather allows for the assertion of any claims for violations of any ERISA provision. The cases Plaintiff cites in support, however, are inapposite in that the releases in those matters either did not include ERISA claims in the waiver provision or had a broader carve-out for claims that affected the employees’ benefits. 10 In this case, the Release specifically provided that all matters in equity or tort under ERISA were waived except claims “to benefits to which [the employee is] entitled,” making the carve-out significantly narrower. To ignore the term “benefits” would render the general release of ERISA claims meaningless. See Stargel v. Sun-Trust Banks, Inc., 968 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1223 (N.D.Ga.2013) (release stated that it “includes, but is not limited to, any claim or entitlement to pay, benefits or damages arising under any federal law (including but not limited to ... the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ... ) ... I understand by signing this Release I am not releasing any claims for benefits under the Motorola employee benefits plan”; The court found that to ignore the language “for benefits under the Motorola employee benefits plan,” would render large portions of the release “meaningless.”). Accordingly, this Court rejects this portion of Plaintiffs’ argument.

Alternatively, Plaintiffs contend that, in their Prayer for Relief, they also specifically request damages under § 1132(a)(1)(B) “after the Court has provided the relief set forth in paragraph C above.” (Am. Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ C.) Such requested relief, however, is improper under § 1132(a)(1)(B). As the Supreme Court explained in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1866 , 179 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011), section 1132(a)(1)(B) may provide relief when a plan participant or beneficiary seeks to “enforce” the “terms of the plan,” but will not provide relief when a participant or beneficiary seeks to change those terms. See 131 S.Ct. at 1876-77 . The district court in CIGNA found that changes to a retirement plan violated various ERISA provisions, including § 1054(h). See 131 S.Ct. at 1874-75 . The district court then “ordered relief in two steps,” relying entirely on § 1132(a)(1)(B). Id. at 1875-76. In “Step 1” it “ordered the terms of the plan reformed.” Id. at 1876. In “Step 2” it “ordered the plan administrator ... to enforce the plan as reformed.” Id. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 1132(a)(1)(B) did not authorize the two-step relief that the district court had ordered:

One can fairly describe step 2 as consistent with § [1132](a)(l)(B), for that provision grants a participant the right to bring a civil action to “recover benefits due ... under the terms of his plan.” ... And step 2 orders recovery of the benefits provided by the “terms of [the] plan” as reformed.

But what about step 1? Where does § [1132](a)(l)(B) grant a court the power to change the terms of the plan as they previously existed? The statutory language speaks of “enforcing]” the *370 “terms of the plan,” not of changing them. The provision allows a court to look outside the plan’s written language in deciding what those terms are, i.e., what the language means.... But we have found nothing suggesting that the provision authorizes a court to alter those terms, at least not in present circumstances, where that change, akin to the reform of a contract, seems less like the simple enforcement of a contract as written and more like an equitable remedy.

Id. at 1876-77 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Instead, the Court suggested that the remedies ordered by the district court likely fit under § 1132(a)(3) because they resembled traditional equitable remedies. Id. at 1878-80. The Court concluded that although “this relief takes the form of a money payment, [that fact] does not remove it from the category of traditionally equitable relief.” Id. at 1880; see also Virtue v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Ret. & Family Protection Plan, 886 F.Supp.2d 32, 36 (D.D.C.2012) (holding that “remedying a violation of § 1054(g) requires changing — not simply enforcing— the terms of the plan,” meaning that a plaintiff seeking to amend the terms of a plan and then enforce the plan as amended must proceed under § 1132(a)(3) and not § 1132(a)(1)).

Likewise, in the present case, Plaintiffs seek a two-step remedy. In step one, they seek to repeal the November 1991 and December 1994 plan amendments that they allege violate the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA. In step two, they seek to enforce the plans as reformed and obtain any monetary benefits to which they are entitled under such reformed plans. According to CIGNA and its progeny, both steps of such relief are properly pursued under § 1132(a)(3) as equitable relief, not under § 1132(a)(1) as benefits. See Clark v. Feder, Semo & Bard, P.C., 808 F.Supp.2d 219, 226 (D.D.C.2011) (holding that a plaintiff “may proceed only under § 1132(a)(1)(B) or § 1132(a)(3), not under both provisions.”). Accordingly, any relief sought by Plaintiffs is equitable relief and not a claim “for benefits.” In turn, Counts I and III of Romero II cannot fall within the carve-out provision of the Release.

(ii) “Benefits to which I am entitled”

Even if the Court were to find that Counts I and III of Romero II constituted claims for “benefits,” such claims would still not fall within the “carve-out” provision of the Release as they are not benefits to which Plaintiffs are “entitled.” As argued by Defendants, Counts I and III of Romero II seek to repeal a November 1991 and December 1994 Plan amendment based on purported violations of ERISA § 204(g) — ERISA’s anti-cutback provision. The anti-cutback provision states that “[t]he accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g)(1). The Release, however, refers to a carve-out to a claim for benefits to which the employee is “entitled.” As “entitled” refers to vested, not accrued, benefits, Allstate asserts that the anti-cutback claims do not fall within the carve-out and, in turn, are subject to the Release. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert that the distinction between vested and accrued benefits appears nowhere in the Release, which applies to “any benefits” to which Plaintiffs are “entitled,” without defining the term “entitled.”

At first blush, the parties’ competing arguments as to the interpretation of the carve-out provision seem to suggest a contractual ambiguity. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the Court must agree with Allstate. As noted above, it is well established that the Court is required to interpret the Release so as to give meaning to *371 all of its provisions. Were the Court to accept Plaintiffs reading of the carve-out, the Release would not cover any of the employee agents’ claims to any benefits in accordance to an Allstate plan subject to ERISA. Such an interpretation would effectively read out the phrase, “to which I am entitled” and render it meaningless. Basic contract principles do not permit such a result.

This conclusion, however, begs the question of what constitutes “benefits to which I am entitled.” The Court finds guidance in general ERISA case law. One of the purposes of ERISA is to protect pension rights by ensuring “that if a worker has been promised a defined pension benefit upon retirement — and if he has fulfilled whatever conditions are required to obtain a vested benefit — he actually will receive it.” Nachman Corp. v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 446 U.S. 359, 375 , 100 S.Ct. 1723 , 64 L.Ed.2d 354 (1980). In the ERISA context, “ ‘accrued benefits refer to those normal retirement benefits that an employee has earned at any given time during the course of employment.’ ” McClain v. Retail Food Emp’rs Joint Pension Plan, 413 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir.2005) (quoting Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623 , 635 n. 5 (7th Cir.2004)). By contrast, “ ‘[v]ested benefits ... refer to those normal retirement benefits to which an employee has a nonforfeitable claim.’ ” Id. (quoting Vallone, 375 F.3d at 635). “In short, an employee’s vested benefits are the accrued benefits that the employee is actually ‘entitled to keep.’ ” Id. (quoting Vallone, 375 F.3d at 635) (emphasis added); see also McDonald v. Pension Plan of NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund, 320 F.3d 151, 156 (2nd Cir.2003) (“‘Accrued’ benefits refer to those normal retirement benefits that an employee has earned at any given time during the course of employment .... ‘Vested’ benefits, on the other hand, refer to those normal retirement benefits to which an employee has a ‘non-forfeitable’ claim; in other words, those accrued benefits he is entitled to keep.”) (emphasis added).

In Stargel v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 968 F.Supp.2d 1215 (N.D.Ga.2013), the court faced the interpretation of a broad release that waived “all Claims under [ERISA], and Claims under any SunTrust employee benefit plan,” but preserved “Claims related to Stargel’s entitlement to receive any vested benefits earned under any Sun-Trust employee benefit plan.” Id. at 1223 . The court agreed with Defendants’ interpretation that the release “merely preserve[d] Stargel’s right the benefits she was entitled to under the terms of the SunTrust’s employee benefit plans at the time she signed the Release.” Id. Notably, the court equated the term “vested” with the term “entitlement.” Consistent with this ruling, several courts have held that “vested benefits” are defined as “benefits [an employee] is entitled to keep.” See McClain, 413 F.3d at 584 (emphasis added); McDonald, 320 F.3d at 156 ; see also Hakim v. Accenture U.S. Pension Plan, 718 F.3d 675, at 681-82 (7th Cir.2013) (“An entitlement, as its name would suggest, refers to vested benefits to which a plaintiff is entitled under the terms of the pension plan itself.”) (emphasis added); Gilley v. Monsanto Co., Inc. 490 F.3d 848, 859 (11th Cir.2007) (noting that at the time a challenged amendment to a pension plan was put into place, plaintiff was not “entitled to any benefits,” because he “could not have earned ten years of Vested Service until after that date.”); Hein v. TechAm. Grp., Inc., 17 F.3d 1278 , 1280 (10th Cir.1994) (“Thus, an interest in a pension benefit program is ‘vested’ if the employee is entitled to retain benefits even if his or her employment is terminated prior to retirement.”) (emphasis added). Consistent with this jurisprudence, this Court finds *372 that the term “to which I am entitled” references vested, not accrued benefits. 11

In short, while Allstate could have avoided some dispute by using the term “vested benefits” in lieu of “benefits to which I am entitled,” 12 Plaintiffs’ efforts to infuse the Release with ambiguity by capitalizing on this term are unconvincing. The meaning of these phrases remains the same. The carve-out to the Release includes this language with the obvious intent of modifying the singular term “benefits.” An entitlement to benefits for purposes of ERISA and the anti-cutback rule has repeatedly been linked to vested benefits, not accrued benefits. As Plaintiffs’ anti-cutback claims do not seek benefits, let alone vested benefits, the Court must find that such claims do not fall within the scope of the carve-out and, hence, are covered by the broad Release provision. 13

b. Whether Counts I and III Arose After the Execution of the Release

In an alternative argument, Plaintiffs seek to invoke the “future claims” carve-out in the Release. This provision states, “I understand that this release and waiver does not apply to any future claims that may arise after I sign this Release ...” (Heinz Decl., Ex. 186 (“Release”), at ARI 04101 (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs contend that their rights to early retirement benefits did not arise until they turned fifty-five and had twenty years of continuous service. Thus, they could not know that the amendments adopted in the 1990s affected them adversely under § 1054(g)’s anti-cutback protections until either they had reached fifty-five and had at least twenty years of continuous service or they had reached fifty-five and had acted in a manner that prevented them from reaching the twenty-year milestone.

This argument is misplaced. Counts I and III of Romero II seek to repeal amendments to the Pension Plan that were adopted in December 1994 and November 1991 respectively. Whether Plaintiffs’ rights under those Plans had yet accrued is irrelevant. Rather, the relevant question is when “the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the injury that forms the basis for the *373 claim.” Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 404 F.3d 212, 222 (3d Cir.2005). In the case of amendments to a pension plan, the Third Circuit rejected “[a] rule that unwaveringly ties the date of accrual to the date of amendment” since that “would have the undesirable effect of requiring plan participants and beneficiaries ‘likely unfamiliar with the intricacies of pension plan formulas and the technical requirements of ERISA, to become watchdogs over potential [p]lan errors and abuses’ ” and “would impose an unfair duty of clairvoyance on employees ... who allege that an amendment’s detrimental effect on them was triggered not at the time of its adoption, but rather at some later time by a subsequent event.” Id. at 224 (internal quotations omitted). Instead, the Third Circuit concluded that “when an ERISA plan is amended but the fact that the amendment actually affects a particular employee or group of employees cannot be known until some later event, the cause of action of the employee will not accrue until such time as the employee knew or should have known that the amendment has brought about a clear repudiation of certain rights that the employee believed he or she had under the plan.” Id. at 223 .

In this case, Plaintiffs knew that the 1991 and 1994 amendments to the Pension Plan repudiated rights that they had under the Plan, at the latest, in 1999 when they signed the Release and converted to independent contractors. As noted above, with respect to Count I, the Program Information Booklet advised Plaintiffs, in November 1999, that their service under the R3001 contract would not count toward obtaining early retirement benefits and that they would cease accruing future benefits under the Plan as of their date of their termination. Similarly, as to Count III, the 1991 amendment eliminated the “beefed-up” benefits at year end of 1999, meaning that Plaintiffs knew, prior to or by the time they signed the Release, that they would not be entitled to such benefits. Accordingly, the Court finds that these claims did not arise after the Releases were executed and, thus, do not fall with the Release’s carve-out provision. 14

c. Whether Plaintiffs’ ERISA Claims Are Protected by ERISA’s Anti-Alienation Provision

In a final effort to argue that Counts I and III of Romero II (as well as *374 the ERISA claims in Romero I) do not fall within the scope of the Release, Plaintiffs contend that the ERISA claims are protected by the anti-alienation provision of ERISA and cannot be waived by the Release. The Court disagrees.

The relevant provision of ERISA states that, “Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.” 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1). “Pension entitlements are, without exception, subject to the anti-alienation provision of ERISA.” Lynn v. CSX Transp., Inc., 84 F.3d 970, 975 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753, 760 , 112 S.Ct. 2242 , 119 L.Ed.2d 519 (1992)). 15 “A release may prevent a plan participant from asserting claims based on a settlement agreement, but may not bar claims based on pension entitlements.” Id.

Crucially, however, “an entitlement, as its name would suggest, refers to vested benefits to which a plaintiff is entitled under the terms of the pension plan itself.” Hakim v. Accenture U.S. Pension Plan, 718 F.3d 675, 681 (7th Cir.2013). Repeatedly, the term “[p]ension entitlements” has repeatedly been interpreted to mean vested benefits. See, e.g., Kickham Hanley P.C. v. Kodak Ret. Income Plan, 558 F.3d 204, 213 (2nd Cir.2009) (noting that ERISA’s anti-alienation provision is irrelevant to claims regarding non-vested pension benefits); Lumpkin v. Envirodyne Indus., Inc., 933 F.2d 449, 455 (7th Cir.1991) (“The anti-alienation provision ... clearly manifests] Congress’s intent to protect workers from unknowingly signing away their vested pension benefits....”) (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs now contend that ERISA’s anti-alienation provision does not distinguish between vested pension entitlements and accrued pension entitlements, but rather prohibits waiver of any ERISA claims. To accept this interpretation, however, would mean that ERISA claims may never be waived by a release — a result contrary to well-settled jurisprudence. Indeed, a general release of all claims has been held to include all ERISA claims even if ERISA is not specifically mentioned See, e.g., Howell v. Motorola, Inc., 633 F.3d 552, 559 (7th Cir.2011) (holding that severance agreement barred plaintiffs claim that his pension account would have been worth more but for defendant’s breach of ERISA fiduciary duties); Calvitti v. Anthony & Sylvan Pools Corp., 351 Fed.Appx. 651, 654-55 (3d Cir.2009) (upholding waiver of ERISA claims under a release); Taylor v. Visteon Corp., 149 Fed.Appx. 422, 426 (6th Cir.2005) (upholding dismissal of ERISA claim waived by release agreement given in exchange for enhanced severance package); Chaplin v. NationsCredit Corp., 307 F.3d 368, 372-73 (5th Cir.2002) (holding that a general release bars claims for ERISA benefits even if ERISA is not specifically mentioned); Smart v. Gillette Co. Long-Term Disability Plan, 70 F.3d 173, 181-82 (1st Cir.1995) (upholding finding that ERISA claims were waived under general release signed by plaintiff). 16

*375 In short, ERISA’s anti-alienation provision — by its plain language and as interpreted by multiple courts of appeals — only prohibits waiver of claims to vested ERISA benefits. The Release in this case honors that statutory dictate by creating a carve-out for benefits to which the employees were entitled. As Counts I and III of Romero II seek only to repeal amendments to the Pension Plan and set forth claims for benefits to which Plaintiffs’ entitlements have not yet vested, the anti-alienation provision does not apply.

3. Conclusion Regarding the Scope of the Release

Having engaged in a lengthy analysis regarding the interpretation of the Release, the Court finds that all claims in Romero I and Romero II are encompassed by the Release’s broad waiver provision. As to all claims in Romero I and Count II of Romero II, the Third Circuit unequivocally and affirmatively held that they were covered by the Release. As such a holding constitutes the precedential law of the case, the Court may not deviate from this finding. As to Counts I and III of Romero II, the Court determines that these claims do not fall within the specific carve-out provision of the Release since (a) they are not claims for benefits, let alone vested benefits; (b) they arose prior to the signing of the Release; and (c) they are not encompassed by ERISA’s anti-alienation provision. In turn, they are covered by the Release’s broad waiver provision.

B. Whether the Release Is Valid

Having found that the language of the Release covers all of Plaintiffs’ claims in Romero I and Romero II, the Court must now consider the validity of the Release. Plaintiffs offer two broad arguments in support of their claim of invalidity. First, they contend that the Release is invalid as to all of their ADEA claims because Allstate failed to comply with the requirements under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. Second, they claim that the Release is invalid as to all of their federal law claims under ADEA and ERISA because Allstate cannot show that it was executed knowingly and voluntarily. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the Release is unconscionable and therefore does not bar Plaintiffs’ common law claims such as breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. 17

1. Compliance with the OWBPA Disclosure Requirements

In 1990, Congress amended the ADEA by passing the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”). OWBPA provides that:

An individual may not waive any right or claim under [the ADEA] unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary.... [A] *376 waiver may not be considered knowing and voluntary unless at a minimum—

(A) the waiver is part of an agreement between the individual and the employer that is written in a manner calculated to be understood by such individual, or by the average individual eligible to participate;

(B) the waiver specifically refers to rights or claims arising under this chapter;

(C) the individual does not waive rights or claims that may arise after the date the waiver is executed;

(D) the individual waives rights or claims only in exchange for consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual is already entitled;

(E) the individual is advised in writing to consult with an attorney prior to executing the agreement;

(F)(i) the individual is given a period of at least 21 days within which to consider the agreement; or

(ii) if a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the individual is given a period of at least 45 days within which to consider the agreement;

(G) the agreement provides that for a period of at least 7 days following the execution of such agreement, the individual may revoke the agreement, and the agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until the revocation period has expired;

(H) if a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the employer (at the commencement of the period specified in subpara-graph (F)) informs the individual in writing in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual eligible to participate, as fir—

(i) any class, unit, or group of individuals covered by such program, any eligibility factors for such program, and any time limits applicable to such program; and

(ii) the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected for the program.

29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this statute to impose rigid requirements: “Congress imposed ■ specific duties on employers who seek releases of certain claims created by statute. Congress delineated these duties and without qualification: An employee ‘may not waive’ an ADEA claim unless the employer complies with the statute. Courts cannot with ease presume ratification of that which Congress forbids.” Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427 , 118 S.Ct. 838 , 139 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998). It went on to note that “[t]he statute creates a series of prerequisites for knowing and voluntary waivers and imposes affirmative duties of disclosure and waiting periods.” Id. Moreover, it remarked that “[t]he OWB-PA governs the effect under federal law of waivers or releases on ADEA claims and incorporates no exceptions or qualifications. The text of the OWBPA forecloses the employer’s defense, notwithstanding how general contract principles would apply to non-ADEA claims.” Id. Notably, “[t]he party asserting the validity of a waiver shall have the burden of proving ... that a waiver was knowing and voluntary ...” 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(3). *377 “The absence of even one of the OWB-PA’s requirements invalidates a waiver.” Butcher v. Gerber Prods. Co., 8 F.Supp.2d 307, 314 (S.D.N.Y.1998).

Allstate asserts that the Release fully complies with all of OWBPA’s dictates. In response, Plaintiffs contend that Allstate failed to comply with at least three OWB-PA requirements: (1) the requirement for the minimum of what must be disclosed (“disclosure requirements”) provided at 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1)(H); (2) the requirement that the release be understandable to the average employee subject to the Program (“understandability requirement”) provided at 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1)(A); and (3) the requirement that the release be supported by consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual is already entitled (“consideration requirement”), provided at 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1)(D). 18

a. The Disclosure Requirements

As set forth above, the disclosure requirements mandate that when an employer seeks a waiver of ADEA claims in connection with an “employment termination program,” it must inform affected employees as to (1) “any class, unit, or group of individuals covered by such program, any eligibility factors for such program, and any time limits applicable to such program;” and (2) “the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected for the program.” 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1)(H). An “employment termination program” takes place when a group or class of employees are involuntarily terminated and “offered additional consideration for their decision to sign a waiver.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 (f)(l)(iii)(A). “Typically, an involuntary termination program is a standardized formula or package of benefits that is available to two or more employees.... ” Id. § 1625.22(f)(l)(iii)(B).

“The terms ‘class,’ ‘unit,’ or ‘group’ in section 7(f)(l)(H)(i) of the ADEA and ‘job classification or organizational unit’ in section 7(f)(l)(H)(ii) of the ADEA refer to examples of categories or groupings of employees affected by a program within an employer’s particular organizational structure.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 (f)(3)(i)(A). Thus, “[w]hen identifying the scope of the ‘class, unit, or group,’ and ‘job classification or organization unit,’ an employer should consider its organizational structure and decision-making process.” Id. § 1625.22(f)(3)(i)(B). The “decisional unit” for purposes of section 7(f)(l)(H)(i) is “that portion of the employer’s organizational structure from which the employer chose the persons who would be offered consideration for the signing of a waiver and those who would not be offered consideration for the signing of a waiver.” Id. When identifying the decisional unit for purposes of the statute, the employer must act on a ease-by-case basis. Id. § 1625.22(f) (3) (ii) (A).

The OWBPA Disclosure in this case defined its decisional unit as follows:

All Allstate R830 and R1500 Agents are eligible for the options described in the “Preparing For The Future” — R830 and R1500 Agent Information Booklet For the Group Reorganization Program (“Program Information Booklet”), except Montana and New Jersey Agents who will be covered in separate pro *378 grams with different options available to them. Please consult the Program Information Booklet for more detailed information about the Program.

(Heinz Decl., Ex. 74 (“Age Discrimination in Employment Waiver Information”), at ARI 003839.) It went on to list ages and job titles for the various agents who were eligible and selected and not eligible and not selected for the Program. Plaintiffs now contend that Allstate cannot show that its OWBPA Disclosure strictly complied with § 626(f)(1)(H) for four reasons. The Court addresses each separately.

(i) Voluntary and Involuntary Terminations

First, the EEOC regulations provide that, “[i]f an employer in its disclosure combines information concerning both voluntary and involuntary terminations, the employer shall present the information in a manner that distinguishes between involuntary and involuntary terminations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 (f)(4)(iv). According to Plaintiffs, however, Allstate did not comply with this requirement, but rather, using a category of “eligible and selected,” the OWBPA disclosure lumped together (a) R830 and R1500 agents who were involuntarily terminated as part of the Program; and (b) the West Virginia and the other R830 agents of Allstate who were not terminated, but had the choice to remain in their contracts or voluntarily participate in the Program. Thus, Plaintiffs contend they could not discern how many R830 and R1500 agents were not being terminated and what their ages were.

The Court agrees that Allstate’s disclosure does not precisely follow the letter of this requirement. A review of the undisputed facts of record reveals that, of the more than 6,300 employee agents listed as “eligible and selected” for the Program, (a) fourteen of them were from West Virginia and were offered incentives to sign the Release, but did not have their contracts involuntarily terminated, and (b) four of them were R830 agents that did not have their contracts involuntarily terminated, but were also offered incentives to sign the Release. In the OWBPA disclosure itself, Allstate did not indicate that these eighteen agents were not having their agreements terminated as of the date specified by the Program.

Allstate responds that the Informational Notice distributed to all agents as part of the Program specified the date by which Allstate terminated its employee agent contracts, and informed all agents that “[t]his does not apply to R830 or R1500 agents whose agreements were executed in the State of West Virginia on or after June 8, 1984.” (Zolner Deck, Ex. 68 (“Informational Notice”), at ARI 003845.) This statement, however, did not clearly inform Plaintiffs that these approximately eighteen agents were not having their contracts terminated. Primarily, the disclosure was in the Program Information Booklet, not in the OWBPA disclosure. Second, the disclosure was couched within a small footnote in small print. Third, the statement to which the footnote was appended stated, “Your employment as an Allstate Agent and your R830 Agent Compensation Agreement or R1500 Agent Employment Agreement shall terminate no later than the close business on June 30, 2000 (or if in Delaware, no later than close of business on December 31, 2000).” (Id.) A plain reading of this text does not indicate to a reasonable reader that the West Virginian agents were never having their contracts terminated, only that their contracts were not terminating on the date specified above. Moreover, it did not reference the four other agents who were exempted from termination.

*379 In addition, Allstate’s disclosure fails to separately list the ages for those agents whose contracts were not being involuntarily terminated. The regulations state that the disclosure must provide “[t]he job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected for the program.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 (f)(l)(ii). The regulations go on to note that “[ijnformation regarding ages should be broken down according to the age of each person eligible or selected for the program and each person not eligible or selected program.” Id. § 1625.22(f)(4)(ii). As noted above, however, “[i]f an employer in its disclosure combines information concerning both voluntary and involuntary terminations, the employer shall present the information in a manner that distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary terminations.” Id. § 1625.22(f)(4)(iv). Undisputedly, Allstate failed to do so. 19

Notwithstanding this failure, Allstate argues that its disclosures complied with the spirit of the regulations in that Plaintiffs were not deprived of any information needed to decide whether to sign the Release or to accurately assess whether they had a possibly valid discrimination claim. This is particularly true in that the eighteen agents who were not terminated “represent an infinitesimal percentage of the total number of agents eligible for the Program” and that fourteen of those agents were over the age of forty. (Allstate’s Resp. Opp’n Mot. Summ. J. 39-40.)

The Court must agree. While the Supreme Court has made clear OWBPA is a “strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers” and that “[a]n employee ‘may not waive’ an ADEA claim unless the employer complies with the statute,” Oubre, 522 U.S. at 426-27 , 118 S.Ct. 838 , the Supreme Court did not address the standard for determining whether an employer’s attempted compliance meets the requirements of OWBPA. Indeed, courts have noted that the disclosure required under § 626(f)(1)(H) is “so imprecise, it cannot possibly require strict application.” Ribble v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. Civ.A.09643, 2012 WL 589252 , at *5 (E.D.Wis. Feb. 22, 2012). “In light of the OWBPA’s imprecise terms, some violations may be so technical as to be de minimis, and thus may not invalidate an otherwise valid release of ADEA claims.” Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Cardoza-Rodriguez, 133 F.3d 111 , 118 n. 6 (1st Cir.1998). “Holding an employer strictly accountable for what might *380 be a technical violation of these imprecise terms [such as ‘job title,’ ‘job classification,’ and ‘organizational unit’], with no indication that this would facilitate the provisions purpose and might even hamper it, is untenable and would elevate form over substance.” Raczak v. Ameritech Corp., 103 F.3d 1257, 1260 (6th Cir.1997); see also Adams v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 231 F.3d 414, 431 (7th Cir.2000) (“[A] literal approach to the statute could lead to hy-pertechnical requirements that have little to do with the purpose of the law.”) Thus, “while an employer must comply with the requirements of the OWBPA in order to obtain a valid waiver, the imprecise language of the statute requires that compliance be measured in relation to the purpose underlying the act.” Ribble, 2012 WL 589252 , at *5.

In this case, the OWBPA requirements as to employee ages and decisional units have a defined purpose. They are intended to “permit older workers,” who might otherwise “have no information at all regarding the scope of the [employment termination] program or its eligibility criteria!,] ... to determine whether the program gives rise to a valid claim under the ADEA.” S.Rep. No. 101-263, at 32 (1990), reprinted in part in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1509, 1537-38; see also Burlison v. McDonald’s Corp., 455 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that the purpose of this provision is “to ensure that older employees are provided with information necessary to evaluate any potential ADEA claims they may have before deciding to release them.”). Thus, in evaluating whether the employer’s § 626(f)(1)(H) disclosure was sufficient, the relevant question is whether the employees were “provided with the age and job-title information that would be relevant if

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.