James A. Garavuso v. Shoe Corporations of Am. Indus., Inc., 892 F.2d 79 (6th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
James A. Garavuso v. Shoe Corporations of Am. Indus., Inc., 892 F.2d 79 (6th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Caldwell v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (ohsd, 2011-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Caldwell v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
S.D. Ohio · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Garavuso v. Shoe Corps. of America Industries, Inc., 709 F.Supp. 1423, 1432 (S.D.Ohio 1989), aff'd 892 F.2d 79 (6th Cir.1989) (extending plaintiffs layoff date and keeping him on payroll past date he would have been eligible for severance pay not an adverse job action under § 1140); see also Bodine v. Employers Casualty Co., 352 F.3d 245, 250-51 (5th Cir.2003) (employer’s failure to terminate employees did not constitute discrimination or unscrupulous conduct required for § 1140 action); Curby v. Solutia, Inc., 351 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2003) (employee cannot submit a resignation and …
discussed Cited "see" Bodine v. Employers Casualty Co.
5th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Van Zant v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 847 F.Supp. 69, 72 (S.D.Tex.1994). 3 The Employer Defendants, like the magistrate judge, point to the absence of each of these elements, citing Perdue v. Burger King Corp., 7 F.3d 1251 (5th Cir.1993), and Garavuso v. Shoe Corp. of America Ind., Inc., 709 F.Supp. 1423 (S.D.Ohio 1989), aff'd 892 F.2d 79 (6th Cir.1989). 4 This Court held in Perdue that “[t]he prohibitions under the statute do not extend per se to an employer who retains an employee so as to avoid payment of severance benefits under an ERISA plan.” 7 F.3d at 1255 .
cited Cited "see" Jackson v. Anderson
N.D. Ohio · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Garrett v. Parke, 892 F.2d 79 , 1989 WL 153553, *1 (6th Cir.) (citing Batchelor v. Cupp, 693 F.2d 859, 865 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1212 , 103 S.Ct. 3547 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1395 (1983)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frazier v. Mitchell
N.D. Ohio · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
That inappropriate and unprofessional excess does not, however, nullify “the legitimacy of the properly admitted substantive evidence.” Lundy, 888 F.2d at 473 ; see also Garrett v. Parke, 1989 WL 153553, *1 , 892 F.2d 79 (6th Cir.1989) (Unpublished Disposition) (admission of thirty-three or thirty-four photos of victim and victim’s bloody clothes did not cause trial to be fundamentally unfair). 13.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James A. Garavuso
v.
Shoe Corporations of America Industries, Inc.
89-3352.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Dec 19, 1989.
892 F.2d 79
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished

892 F.2d 79

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
James A. GARAVUSO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHOE CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-3352.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1989.

Before MILBURN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

James Garavuso ("Garavuso") appeals the district court's award of summary judgment for Shoe Corporations of America Industries, Inc. ("SCOA") in this action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The facts of this case, as found by the district court, are in its reported opinion. See Garavuso v. Shoe Corp. of America, Ind., 709 F.Supp. 1423, 1426-27 (S.D.Ohio 1989).

2

The principal issue on appeal is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for SCOA on Garavuso's claims for (1) failure to pay severance benefits under ERISA; (2) a declaratory judgment for entitlement to benefits under SCOA's plan if he is laid off in the future by his current employer; (3) interference with an employment relationship; and (4) interference with protected rights under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140.

3

Upon consideration of the entire record, the briefs filed herein, and after hearing oral argument, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion, and for the further reason that a proper construction of the severance pay plan is that if one is offered a comparable job by a successor corporation and accepts the offer without a loss of compensation, no severance benefits are recoverable.