No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that plaintiffs voluntarily terminated their employment when they chose to leave in May despite the company's offer to continue employment until October, and therefore were ineligible for severance benefits under the plan's involuntary termination requirement.
Reddinger v. Sena Severance Pay Plan Summary
What Happened
Employees at NewPage Wisconsin System, Inc. were offered severance benefits if they were involuntarily terminated. The workers left their jobs in May, even though the company offered to keep them employed until October. They later sued, claiming they were entitled to severance pay.
The Court's Decision
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the workers. The court decided that because the employees chose to leave in May rather than accept the company's offer to continue working, they voluntarily quit their jobs. Since the severance plan only covered involuntary terminations (being laid off), the workers were not eligible for the benefits.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that severance benefits typically depend on how employment ends. If you quit—even if circumstances are difficult—you may not qualify for severance. To receive these benefits, you generally need to be terminated by the employer against your will. Workers should carefully review severance plan rules before deciding to leave a job, as voluntarily resigning can affect what benefits you receive.
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.