Skip to main content

Beryl v. Navient Corporation

N.D. Cal.July 13, 2023No. 3:20-cv-05920
Plaintiff WinNavient Corporation$3,070,666.33 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
791 Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of ContractFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

Plaintiff Louis Beryl prevailed on breach of employment contract and estoppel claims against Navient Corporation. A jury awarded him $400,000 severance, $400,000 bonus, $1 million in Restricted Stock Units, and $1.3 million in Performance Cash Units (reduced to $350,000), plus $920,666.33 in ERISA benefits and waiting-time penalties. The court subsequently granted his motion for attorney's fees and costs.

What This Ruling Means

**Beryl v. Navient Corporation: ERISA Benefits Case** This case involved a dispute between an employee (Beryl) and Navient Corporation over employment benefits covered under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). ERISA is a federal law that protects workers' pension and health benefits by setting standards for employer-sponsored benefit plans. While the specific details of what benefits were disputed and the exact nature of the conflict aren't provided in the available information, this appears to be a typical ERISA benefits case where an employee challenged their employer's handling of their retirement or health benefits. The court's final decision and outcome are not detailed in the available records, so it's unclear how the dispute was resolved or whether the employee was successful in their claim. **What This Means for Workers:** ERISA cases like this demonstrate that employees have legal rights when it comes to their workplace benefits. If you believe your employer has improperly denied, reduced, or mishandled your pension, 401(k), health insurance, or other ERISA-covered benefits, you may have grounds to challenge those decisions in court. These laws exist specifically to protect workers' earned benefits from employer mismanagement or denial.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Beryl
N.D. Cal.Jul 2023
Plaintiff Win
Beryl
N.D. Cal.Apr 2023
Plaintiff Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.