employee benefit plans. We participate in a defined contribution profit-sharing and savings plan which qualifies under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code and covers all eligible employees. Annual profit-sharing contributions are determined by our Board of Directors, in accordance with the provisions of the plan. We can also elect to make matching contributions to the plan at the discretion of our Board of Directors. Profit-sharing plan expense, including matching contributions, was approximately $31.2 million in 2007, $28.1 million in 2006, and $26.6 million in 2005.
nonQualified deferred compensation plan. The Robinson Companies Nonquali-fied Deferred Compensation Plan provides certain employees the opportunity to defer a specified percentage or dollar amount of their cash and stock compensation. Participants may elect to defer up to 100% of their cash compensation. The accumulated benefit obligation was $1.2 million and $1.3 million as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. We have purchased investments to fund the future liability. The investments had an aggregate market value of $1.2 million as of De-cember 31, 2007 and $1.3 million as of December 31, 2006, and are included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheets. In addition, all restricted shares granted but not yet delivered are also held within this plan.
lease commitments. We lease certain facilities and equipment under operating leases. Lease expense was $26.9 million for 2007, $22.2 million for 2006, and $19.4 million for 2005.
Minimum future lease commitments under noncancelable lease agreements in excess of one year as of December 31, 2007, are as follows (in thousands):
| 2008 | $ | 22,216 | |
| 2009 | 20,773 | ||
| 2010 | 17,533 | ||
| 2011 | 13,500 | ||
| 2012 | 9,033 | ||
| Thereafter | 22,573 | ||
| Total | $ | 105,628 |
litigation. As we previously disclosed, during 2002 we were named as a defendant in two lawsuits brought by a number of present and former employees. The first lawsuit alleged a hostile working environment, unequal pay, promotions, and opportunities for women, and failure to pay overtime (“FLSA”). The second lawsuit alleged a failure to pay overtime. The plaintiffs in both lawsuits sought unspecified monetary and non-monetary damages and class action certification.
On March 31, 2005, the judge issued an order denying class certification for the hostile working environment claims, and allowing class certification for certain claims of gender discrimination in pay and promotion. The judge also granted our motions for summary judgment as to the hostile working environment claims of ten of the named plaintiffs, and dismissed those claims. The gender discrimination class claims and the remaining two hostile work environment claims were settled on April 11, 2006, and subsequently approved by the Court on September 18, 2006. The settlement was within our insurance coverage limits, and was fully funded by the insurance carriers.
The settlement of the gender discrimination class claims did not include the overtime pay lawsuits, or the claims of putative class members who subsequently filed individual EEOC charges after the denial of class status on March 31, 2005. Fifty-four of those EEOC claimants filed lawsuits. Forty- three of those suits have been settled or dismissed. The settlement amount was not material to our financial position or results of operations. We are vigorously defending the remaining 11 lawsuits.
Although the gender class settlement was fully funded by the insurance carriers, those carriers reserved the right to seek a court ruling that a portion of the settlement was not covered under their policies, and also to dispute payment of certain defense costs incurred in that litigation. Insurance coverage litigation between us and one of our insurance carriers concerning these issues and insurance coverage for the individual lawsuits has been pending in Minnesota State Court. Recent court rulings have determined that the gender class settlement payment was appropriately covered under applicable policies, and that the insurance carrier has a duty to reimburse reasonable defense costs in the gender class action and all but two of the individual lawsuits, and to indemnify C.H. Robinson in all but two of the individual lawsuits. This ruling is subject to appeal.
With respect to the FLSA overtime claims, the judge issued an order granting in full our Motion to Decertify the FLSA collective action on September 26, 2006. The judge retained jurisdiction over the named plaintiffs’ FLSA overtime claims and dismissed the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs, without prejudice to their right to bring their own claims in separate lawsuits in appropriate venues. Approximately 525 of the dismissed opt-in plaintiffs either filed or joined in lawsuits asserting individual FLSA claims for failure to pay overtime. Approximately 37 of those individuals have filed voluntary dismissals of their claims. We have reached an agreement to settle all of the remaining lawsuits. This agreement was approved by the Court on February 20, 2008. The settlement amount was not material to our financial position or results of operations.
We are not subject to any other pending or threatened litigation other than routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business operations, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
