Laidoff, being denied enhanced severance benefit package

[NewBeginning]

I was working for a company in Rochseter NY which aquired the company I originally worked for. As part of this merger agreement, an enhanced severance package was adopted covering all employees of the original company being aquired. The two companies closed their merger on Sept 28, 1999 and the extended severance package is in effect until Sept 28, 2001. To be eligable, you must have been employeed on or before Sept 28, 1999.

I was hired by the original company on September 11, 1997 and worked for them until being laid off on June 30, 2001. My original position with the company was transfered to Newark NJ and I was laid off on Sept 15, 1999. I had advance notice of the relocation and pending termination and had interviewed and accepted another position with the same company. The new position didn't have the tools or space for me to preform the function so we agreed on a start date of Oct 4, 1999. I was granted and was receiving a 9 week severance package which the company took back 7 weeks of remaining severance .

I was laid off as part of a corporate wide downsizing and reorginization on June 30, 2001. The company is dening me the extended package based upon the two week break in jobs back in 1999 which coincidentially was at the time the merger between the two companies closed. Their position was that I was an "Inactive" employee at the time of the merger and therefore not eligable.

If I pursue this in court, I believe it's going to come down to what my employment status with the company was at the time of the merger. In the plan summary it excludes inactive employees however there is no defination of what an "inactive" employee is contained in the legaleez.

My question is: does the fact that they didn't define an "inactive" employee in the contract leave it open for interpretation by the courts? Can I argue I should be eligable based upon the intent of the contract to mitigate the fear of termination or layoffs? Can I prevail based upon what I've described or will the court look for strict adherence to the contract language? How do I research case law to see if there are simular cases and what the verdict was?

 

[loku]

Does the fact that they didn't define an "inactive" employee in the contract leave it open for interpretation by the courts?

I agree that this is the main issue, and I agree that the fact that they did not define the term does leave it open for interpretation by the courts. Also, although I doubt anyone could predict what a court would conclude on this, you have one thing going for you. When one party, such as an employer, has the stronger bargaining position, is expected to have more sophistication in the area, and actually draws up the contract (or document), then ambiguities should be construed against that party. However, the thing you have going against you is that you were not actively on the job at the critical time.


Can I argue I should be eligible based upon the intent of the contract to mitigate the fear of termination or layoffs?

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the strength of this argument.


Can I prevail based upon what I've described or will the court look for strict adherence to the contract language?

See my answer above.


How do I research case law to see if there are similar cases and what the verdict was?

Without access to one of the expensive legal research services on the Internet, you can only do decent case research at your local law library. There are several methods of doing case research, but most of them depend on finding the topic in a legal index, which refers to cases which deal with the topics. For example, if you get West Publications Key number that closest matches your problem, then you can find all the cases that contain that key. Possibly the law librarian will be able to help you.