Jeffrey Sutton, a longtime Refinery Operator at Valero's Benicia refinery, has filed an ERISA lawsuit against Unum Life Insurance Company of America alleging that Unum miscalculated and underpaid his long-term disability benefits by roughly $3,467 per month by excluding years of mandatory, pre-scheduled overtime from his pre-disability earnings.
OAKLAND, Calif., June 24, 2026 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Roberts Disability Law, P.C., attorneys representing a disabled refinery worker, announced today that they have filed suit against Unum Life Insurance Company of America, alleging that Unum underpaid his long-term disability benefits by failing to count the substantial mandatory overtime he was required to work in the years before he became disabled.
According to court documents, Jeffrey Sutton filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Mr. Sutton worked as a Refinery Operator at Valero Refining – Benicia beginning in 2009 and became disabled on December 16, 2024. After Unum approved his long-term disability claim and began paying benefits in 2025, Mr. Sutton alleges that Unum calculated his monthly benefit using only his base "4 days on, 4 days off" schedule and excluded the mandatory overtime that, according to the Complaint, made up roughly half or more of his monthly income in the years leading up to his disability.
The Complaint alleges that staffing at the Benicia refinery had dwindled by 2022, and that operators were required to work what the employer designated as "mandatory" overtime shifts — often resulting in 60 to 80 hours of additional work per week. Court documents allege that these shifts were scheduled and assigned in advance, frequently more than 24 hours before the shift, to cover known vacancies, scheduled training, and pre-planned vacations and leaves — rather than the kind of unexpected absences or emergencies typically associated with unscheduled overtime.
Mr. Sutton alleges that Unum's policy includes "scheduled overtime" in the calculation of pre-disability earnings but does not define the term or distinguish it from "unscheduled overtime." The Complaint alleges that the mandatory overtime Mr. Sutton was required to work was scheduled in advance and should have been included in his pre-disability earnings. As a result, the Complaint alleges, Unum's calculation of his monthly benefit was understated by approximately $3,467 each month.
According to court documents, Mr. Sutton notified Unum of the alleged miscalculation in March 2026 and submitted supporting evidence, including payroll records reflecting mandatory overtime hours, the employer's overtime policy and mandatory overtime form, and a declaration explaining the scheduled nature of the overtime. The Complaint alleges that more than sixty days passed without Unum issuing a decision on the recalculation request and without Unum invoking the extension procedure required under ERISA's claims regulations. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Sutton is therefore deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies and is entitled to pursue his claim in federal court.
The lawsuit seeks a determination that Mr. Sutton's regularly scheduled mandatory overtime must be included in the calculation of his pre-disability earnings and monthly benefit, an order directing Unum to recalculate and pay past-due and future benefits at the correct rate, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Mr. Sutton's Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges a claim for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeks to enforce the terms of the group long-term disability policy and to recover the costs of pursuing the action.
Media Contact
Michelle L. Roberts, Roberts Disability Law, P.C., 1 510-230-2090, [email protected], http://www.robertsdisability.com
Kristin Kyle de Bautista, Roberts Disability Law, P.C., 1 510-230-2090, [email protected], http://www.robertsdisability.com
SOURCE Roberts Disability Law, P.C.
Share this article