A study on the ingersoll rand co v mcclendon case

Supreme Court of the United States. Argued October 9, Decided December 3, Hurd argued the cause for petitioner.

A study on the ingersoll rand co v mcclendon case

Rehearing Denied November 15, Tavormina, Houston, for petitioner. Little, Houston, for respondent. This is a suit for wrongful discharge. McClendon alleged that he was discharged from his employment so that Ingersoll-Rand could escape its obligation to contribute to his pension fund. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of Ingersoll-Rand.

The court of appeals affirmed. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court. In AugustMcClendon began employment with Ingersoll-Rand as a salesperson and distributor of construction equipment.

In lateIngersoll-Rand transferred McClendon from San Antonio to Dallas so that he could develop a potentially lucrative market there.

Texas courts have traditionally followed the employment-at-will doctrine which allows that employment for an indefinite term may be ended at will and without cause. Although this doctrine has been widely accepted, numerous exceptions and limitations have been placed on its application.

MCCLENDON v. INGERSOLL-RAND CO | Tex. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

For example, federal law prohibits the discharge of an employee because of age, race, religion, sex, color or national origin. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of29 U. Federal law also prohibits a private employer from discharging an employee who exercises his rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act to minimum wage and overtime.

In addition to state and federal legislation, courts have developed various common-law restraints on the doctrine of employment-at-will. In Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. See also Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, LocalCal.

Central Indiana Gas Co. National Cash Register Co. More specifically, the Eastern District of New York has recognized a cause of action for wrongful discharge when an employee alleges that he was terminated to deprive him of pension benefits.

Lutheran Medical Center, F. The court expressly recognized the public policy associated with the preservation of pension plans for both governmental and private employees. The very passage of ERISA demonstrates the great significance attached to income security for retirement purposes.

We hold that public policy favors the protection of integrity in pension plans and requires in this case an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

The central issue in this case, as argued and briefed by the parties, concerns whether the duty or implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing exists in the context of an employment-at-will relationship.

The majority opinion not only fails to address this issue, but also creates a state cause of action based on conduct already prohibited by federal statute. Given the adverse impact that the majority opinion will have upon our court systems, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

According to the court, ERISA demonstrates the great significance attached to income security for retirement. Section of ERISA expressly states that it is "unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan.

Section e 1 confines litigation of certain claims to federal court. Consequently, an ERISA claimant who sues for termination resulting from intent to avoid pension responsibility may sue only in federal court.

It is, after all, possible for state and federal law to address the same problem.McClendon sought compensatory and punitive damages under various tort and contract theories; he did not assert any cause of action under ERISA. After a period of discovery, the company moved for, and obtained, summary judgment on all claims.

Dec 22,  · * Petitioner Ingersoll-Rand Company employed respondent Perry McClendon as a salesman and distributor of construction equipment.

In , after McClendon had worked for the company for nine years and eight months, the company fired him citing a companywide reduction in force. Petitioner Ingersoll-Rand employed respondent Perry McClendon as a salesman and distributor of construction equipment.

In , after McClendon had worked for the company for nine years and eight months, the company fired him, citing a company-wide reduction in force. "Ingersoll-Rand Company v.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

McClendon." Oyez, 22 Nov. , schwenkreis.com NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the schwenkreis.com version WordPerfect version: HTML version, WordPerfect version.

Petitioner Ingersoll-Rand employed respondent Perry McClendon as a salesman and distributor of construction equipment.

A study on the ingersoll rand co v mcclendon case

In , after McClendon had worked for the .

McClendon v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., S.W.2d 69 – schwenkreis.com