Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
LUCIANO BARRAGAN v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. et al
Case Number:
2:24-cv-04529
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
March 19, 2025
Ex-Worker Says Honeywell Must Face Retooled 401(k) Suit
A former Honeywell International Inc. worker urged a New Jersey federal judge to reject the aerospace and manufacturing company's bid to toss his amended proposed class claims targeting how the company used forfeited 401(k) funds, arguing that he plausibly pled his allegations.
-
December 20, 2024
Honeywell Escapes Ex-Employee's 401(k) Forfeiture Suit
Honeywell International defeated a proposed class action alleging it violated federal benefits law when it used ex-employees' forfeited 401(k) funds to offset its retirement plan contributions rather than cover administrative expenses, with a New Jersey federal judge finding the company's actions complied with the plan's terms.
-
November 06, 2024
Honeywell Cites Clorox Case In 401(k) Forfeiture Suit Toss Bid
Honeywell has urged a New Jersey federal court to toss a proposed class action alleging that it violated federal benefits law over its practice of using forfeited 401(k) contributions to offset its retirement plan contributions rather than covering plan expenses, pointing to a California decision involving similar claims.