JOSEPH W. ACCARDI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CONTROL DATA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

2d Cir. | 1989-02-13
Nos. 656, Docket 88-7749
Before FEINBERG, KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
869 F.2d 25 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for CDC, finding plaintiffs were no longer eligible employees under the Benefits Agreement.


Facts & Procedural History

Former IBM/CDC employees now employed by ADP sued CDC for employee benefits after CDC sold a division to ADP. Prior litigation addressed severance ben…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

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).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw