Jump to Navigation

Wilmington Pension And Retirement Benefits Attorneys

Engaged in a fight with your employer over your pension benefits? Do not come to the battle line unprepared and undefended. Enlist the help of our firm, Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law. We are a client-focused Wilmington firm handling a comprehensive list of employment law and litigation matters for our clients in Delaware.

For more than 19 years, we have helped employees obtain benefits, respond to hurdles and problems, and file lawsuits and appeals when necessary.

Experienced Counsel For Delaware Clients

As an employee, you have put in your years of service and have built your retirement benefits up as you prepare for the next stage in life. You invested in a retirement plan that best fits your needs and relied on your employer's promises regarding these future benefits. You did not count on receiving less money than you expected or worse.

We provide effective legal advice and representation to protect the rights of employees and retired workers. We will explore all options for legal remedies if you were promised pension benefits and now find something has changed. Our firm is prepared to handle such cases involving:

  • Pensions
  • 401 and 403 retirement plans
  • Individual retirement accounts

We want to help you get what was promised. Whether the claim falls under ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act), involves changes in policy terms, fees, restructuring or other issues, we will protect your interests and fight for what is yours.

Pension Benefit Counsel For Employers

Our practice is not limited to employees exclusively. Employers and businesses seek our counsel regarding administering benefits to their employees, complying with local and federal laws (such as ERISA), and responding to legal action.

Contact Our Delaware Retirement Benefits Lawyers

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, our team is here to support you. Contact us at 302-529-0121 to arrange an in-person meeting. Our office is conveniently located in the suburbs just outside the city of Wilmington.

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy