DAVENPORT --- A federal judge has ruled in favor of Deere & Co. in a class-action lawsuit stemming from a change in health care benefits that pitted a group of retirees against their former employer.

In a 44-page ruling filed Friday, Judge Charles Wolle found in favor of the Moline equipment maker on all four counts of the federal suit. While eight individual retirees were named as plaintiffs, the class represents nearly 5,000 retirees - mostly salaried workers - who are covered by the new health plan introduced by Deere in 2007.

The retirees, the plaintiffs in the case, had argued that the Healthy Directions plan represented a reduction in the benefits of the flex retirees and violated federal employment law.

In his ruling, Wolle said "The court has found the testimony of plaintiffs concerning their claims quite vague in most respects and less credible than the testimony of the witnesses presented by defendants and the plan documents that corroborate those witnesses' testimony."

He also wrote "the court finds Deere did not guarantee their retirees would have medical benefits throughout their life with no change, or with changes limited to cost-sharing components such as co-pay, deductibles and premiums."

His decision comes after a two-week bench trial in U.S. District Court, Davenport, in which retirees from across the Midwest packed the courtroom on some days. During the trial, numerous Deere retirees testified how they were told many times over the years by supervisors, human resource staff and in meetings that they would carry the same health benefits in retirement as they had had as active employees.

Deere had contended that the new program put the retirees more in charge of their health care decisions. The company's defense was that it had always maintained a reservation of rights clause stating that it could change or terminate the benefits plan at any time.

"It's disappointing and sad for the retirees who were very courageous for taking on a very large company and putting aside the feelings of loyalty and trust they felt over the years for their employer,'' said Susan Martin, one of the Phoenix, Ariz., attorneys representing the retirees. "It's a sad day for retirees in general when you can't rely on the statements of your employer."

Wolle found "Deere repeatedly and plainly stated in plan documents ... that it retained the right to amend, modify or terminate the benefit plans."

He also indicated that it was "abundantly clear that at least some of the Deere retirees believe they have been left empty-handed after the changes ..." But he wrote that the retirees' expectations of their benefits were "based on flawed memories of what supervisory personnel had told them" and "not justified or reasonable."

In a news release issued Friday, Deere & Co. indicated it was pleased with the ruling and continued to stand by its new plan, which was effective Jan. 1, 2008. The program, the company said, "will be beneficial in the long run for affected retirees and the company."

"While other companies have eliminated health care benefits entirely, Deere's senior management showed its intense interest in supporting our retirees by adopting a plan that appears sustainable and engages this group of retirees to be more actively involved in their health care decisions," Mert Hornbuckle, Deere's vice president of human resources, said in the release.

"Although some retirees were not interested in making a change, we will continue to work to show how the new program supports the health care needs of John Deere retirees," he said. "We have been encouraged that most of those who are covered by the benefit program found it to be reasonable, fair and effective."

But the ruling was a huge blow for the Flex Retirees Organization, or FRO, a group formed two years ago by a group of Deere retirees in response to the new health plan. The group, which rallied the retirees, was instrumental in bringing about the lawsuit which was financed by contributions from individual retirees.

"We fought a good fight," Bill Gabbard, FRO's president, said Friday. "We feel that our law firm put forth an excellent fight. We knew battling John Deere in their own backyard would be an uphill battle."

Gabbard, who was the third generation in his family to work for Deere, said the group is "extremely disappointed in the judge's ruling." Although he had not seen the decision, he said "We think Deere flex retirees got shortchanged by this ruling."

The suit named these retirees as plaintiffs: Dora Brubaker, Johnston, Iowa; Thomas Blosch, Dubuque, Iowa; Michael Stohlmeyer, East Moline; Janet Harville, Ottumwa, Iowa; Mark Mulvehill, Dubuque; Diana Nielsen, Waterloo, Iowa; Ronald Nichols, Des Moines; and Judith Pals, Hazel Green, Wis.

The retirees' attorneys, Martin and Dan Bonnett, said they will study the opinion and consult with their clients before deciding their next step. "We did the best we could on behalf of a very deserving group of retirees," Martin said.

"I think the defendants had nothing but the reservation of rights clause in the written document," she added. "We had on our side the fact people were told repeatedly they would have the same benefits in retirement."

Bonnett said the decision means Deere can continue with its Healthy Directions program. Under the plan, retirees receive medical credits from Deere that they can use to purchase their own insurance coverage.

"I grew up in the Midwest," Bonnett said. "You took people at their word. It's part of the culture there."

Martin added, "This should send a message to salaried employees everywhere. They should read the fine print."