Browse our Free Essay examples and check out our Writing tools to get your assignments done.
The
US Legal System - Briefing a Case
Musick
v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.
Case
Title
Musick
v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Musick
et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. Musick et al. v. Goodyear Tire
& Rubber Co., Inc.
519
U.S. 965
No.
96-349
Supreme
Court of the United States
Decided
November 04, 1996
Facts
Given
The
case is about a complaint made by two employees, Musick and Character,
regarding their denial by the company to access benefits entitled to them under
the Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Both complainants were
arguing their case against their employer, Goodyear’s Gadsden Plan. Robert B.
Propst presided over the case.
The
terms of services were that, when an employee reached 55 years and has worked
for the company for 10 years and above, they would be entitled to a retirement
plan funding as provided for by section 29 U.S.C. § 1140. Additionally, the
contract terms envisioned that when an employee works for the company for 30
years consecutive, such employees would be accorded all the retirement benefits
regardless of age.
However,
when one of the plaintiffs was 50 years old, Musick, he was laid off from the
company despite having worked for the business for 19 years and several months.
Also, the second plaintiff, Character, was also raided off at the same time,
but he had worked for the company for 25 years and 6 months. However, 4 years
later, in 1994, both complainants were recalled by the company to continues
with their work. From the complainants' point of view, these layoffs appeared a
bit suspicious as if they were aimed to deny them a retirement package.
Procedural
History
The first part of the legal process started with individual complainants taking their case to the district court. Both Musick and Character when to court at different times, but the district court consolidated both cases. During the initial case hearing, the defendant, Goodyear Company, applied summary judgment with the main defense that both employees were limited by section 510. They delayed their legal...
