If an employer decides to deny a
Recent case: Dennis Saddler worked for the same company for 32 years. When the company was sold, Saddler was told he would simply be transferred to the acquiring company. Under its original ownership, a written severance plan allowed employees who were terminated because of a plant closing or sale to receive a severance payment.
Saddler continued working in the same building, at the same desk, doing the same thing and using the same telephone. A few months later, he quit.
Then, more than two years after he resigned (and nearly three years after he was transferred), he sued to receive a severance payment. The trial court threw out the case and he appealed.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said the benefit was an ERISA-covered benefit. That meant it had to consider whether there was a potential conflict of interest when the new ownership of the company decided not to pay the benefit.
However, the court said the decision wasn’t tainted, an abuse of discretion or both. Saddler won’t receive a payment under the severance plan. (Saddler v. Elliott, No. 09-1476, 3rd Cir., 2009)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Under a PTO plan, how should we handle payouts when employees quit or get fired?
- EEOC issues employer best practices on work/family balance
- Employee out on FMLA leave? You can still insist on following call-in policy
- Isolated comments not enough for lawsuit