FREE ESSAY ON INGERSOLL - RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON

INGERSOLL - RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON

Re: Ingersoll -Rand Co. v. McClendon, page 57
Date: 1-4-99
FACTS:
Perry McClendon, plaintiff, was an employee of Ingersoll-Rand Co., defendant, for nine
years. Plaintiff felt he was fired short of his ten years of service so defendant could
avoid pension obligations. Plaintiff sued for wrongful discharge. Defendant argues that
plaintiff's common law claim was preempted by the ERISA (Employee Retirement Income
Security Act).
ARGUMENTS:
Plaintiff: Wrongful discharge
Defendant: Terminated at will and common law case was preempted by ERISA provisions.
ISSUE(S)
An ERISA plan exists and the employer had a pension-defeating motive in terminating the
employment of plaintiff.
HOLDING:
EIRSAs explicit language and its structure and purpose demonstrate a congressional intent
to pre-empt a state common law claim that an employee was unlawfully discharged to
prevent his attainment of benefits under an ERISA covered plan.
DECISION:
In favor of Defendant. 
ANALYSIS:
General Rule of Law: The impact of this case of business today is noticeable in actions
where you see companies offering early retirement packages to reduce workforce size and
also avoid wrongful termination suits. This case has held corporations more accoutable
for terminating. Case study states if plaintiff would have sued for pension benefits
instead of wrongful termination the outcome would have been in his favor.
Rule applied to facts: The Texas court granted the company summary judgment and the State
Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that plaintiff's employment was terminable at will. The
State Supreme Court reversed and remanded for trial, holding that public policy required
recognition of an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. Therefore, recovery would
be permitted in a wrongful discharge action if the plaintiff could prove that "the
principal reason for his termination was the employer's desire to avoid contributing to
or paying benefits under the employee's pension fund." In distinguishing federal cases
holding similar claims pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
the court reasoned that plaintiff was seeking future lost wages, recovery for mental
anguish, and punitive damages rather than lost pension benefits.
Dissenting opinion: None given