ACCARDI v. CONTROL DATA CORP.

No. 656, Docket 88-7749.

869 F.2d 25 (1989)

Joseph W. ACCARDI, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONTROL DATA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided February 13, 1989.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stephen A. Agus, New York City (Purrington, McConnell & Agus, Albert A. Hatem, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Barbara A. Leininger, New York City (Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, W. Hubert Plummer, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Control Data Corp.

Before FEINBERG, KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.


PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs, 16 former employees of IBM and then Control Data Corporation (CDC), appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Whitman Knapp, J., granting summary judgment to defendant CDC in this action based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. CDC sold one of its divisions to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) in 1985, and plaintiffs are now employed by ADP. Nevertheless, they claim that they are still entitled to employee benefits from CDC.

The factual background of this case is summarized in a prior opinion of this court, reported at 836 F.2d 126 (2d Cir.1987), and a prior opinion of the district court, reported at 658 F.Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y.1987). The district court, in that opinion, granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of severance benefits. This court reversed on that issue and ruled that the plan administrator had not, under ERISA, acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying severance benefits. However, we remanded to allow the district court to consider whether plaintiffs are entitled to continued overall benefits under a Benefits Agreement entered into by Control Data and IBM, plaintiffs' previous employer.

On remand, the district court held for defendant principally on the ground that plaintiffs are no longer "eligible employees" according to the terms of the Benefits Agreement. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion, reported at 704 F.Supp. 517 (S.D.N.Y.1988)


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases