No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that EQUICOR was not acting as a fiduciary when it failed to provide formal notice of job elimination, that plaintiff was ineligible for severance benefits because he accepted a position with CIGNA, that there was no intentional denial of benefits under ERISA § 510, and that state law claims were preempted by ERISA.
Worker Loses Fight for Severance Pay After Job Elimination
Richard Amato sued his former employer EQUICOR and its severance pay plan after his job was eliminated. Amato claimed the company failed to properly notify him about the job cuts and argued he should have received severance benefits. He also alleged the company intentionally denied him benefits he was entitled to under federal employee benefits law (ERISA).
The court ruled against Amato on all counts. The judges found that EQUICOR didn't act improperly when it failed to give formal notice about eliminating his position. Most importantly, the court determined Amato wasn't eligible for severance pay because he accepted a new job with CIGNA, another company. The court also rejected his claim that EQUICOR intentionally denied him benefits, and ruled that federal law prevented him from pursuing his case under state laws.
What this means for workers: This case shows that accepting a new job with another company can disqualify you from receiving severance benefits, even if your original position was eliminated. Workers should carefully review their severance plan terms and consider how taking a new job might affect their benefits before making employment decisions.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.