Van Camp v. AT & T Information Systems’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We agree with Van Camp’s contention that state laws traditionally have played a significant role in protecting citizens from age and sex discrimination. See Shaw [v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.], 463 U.S. [85] at 101, 103 S.Ct. [2890] at 2902 [ 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) ]. Application of the remaining two factors, however, suggest that Van Camp’s claims are substantially related to an employee benefit plan, and, therefore, that the district court did not err in its determination that they were properly removed to federal court. Although Van Camp points out that he does not now seek reinstatement, his state-law claims are inconsistent with the retirement agreement under which he currently receives pension benefits. When Van Camp retired, he signed an agreement acknowledging that his decision to receive benefits under the enhanced pension plan was irrevocable and stating that he voluntarily retired. The effect of this agreement, one which provides that Van Camp is a voluntary retiree entitled to benefits under the ERISA plan, is the fulcrum on which resolution of this dispute turns. If Van Camp is entitled to recover on that theory that, as he claims, his retirement was forced by AT & T’s age and sex discrimination and, therefore, was not voluntary, a court first would have to rule on the validity of the retirement agreement. Such a determination could be made only with reference to ERISA and would affect the existing benefit plan and the relations between Van Camp and AT & T “as princip”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Cassens Transport · Frances Jones Beverly Harder Eleanor Murray Linda Wickel and Mary Ruane v. Cassens Transport Truck Drivers Local 299

2. “In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Neusser, 810 F.2d 550 (6th Cir.1987), we set out three factors for consideration when determining whether a state-law claim falls outside of ERISA’s broad preemption. As Neusser explains, “the factors ... are not exhaustive and ... no single factor is dispositive.” Id. at 556 . Nevertheless, they do provide some guidance as they reflect the goal Congress sought to achieve when it enacted the preemption clauses of ERISA — ” ‘reservation to Federal authority the sole power to regulate the field of employee benefit plans.’ ” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 46 [ 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1552 , 95 L.Ed.2d 39 ] (1987) (quoting 120 Cong.Rec. 29197 (1974)). One factor to consider is whether the claim arises under a law that “represents a traditional exercise of state authority.” Id. at 555. See Shaw, 463 U.S. at 101 [ 103 S.Ct. at 2902 ]. A second factor is whether invocation of the state law will affect “ ‘relations among the principal ERISA entities.’ ” Neusser, 810 F.2d at 556 (quoting Sommers Drug Stores Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan Enters., 793 F.2d 1456, 1467 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1089 [ 107 S.Ct. 1298 , 94 L.Ed.2d 154 ] (1987)). Finally, the court may consider “the incidental nature of any possible effect of state law on an ERISA plan.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 802 F. Supp. 152 - Cairns v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

3. “Although [plaintiff] points out that he does not now seek reinstatement, his state-law claims are inconsistent with the retirement agreement under which he currently receives pension benefits. When [plaintiff] retired, he signed an agreement acknowledging that his decision to receive benefits under the enhanced pension plan was irrevocable and stating that he voluntarily retired. The effect of this agreement, one which provides that [plaintiff] is a voluntary retiree entitled to benefits under the ERISA plan, is the fulcrum on which resolution of this dispute turns. If [plaintiff] is entitled to recover on the theory that, as he claims, his retirement was forced by [defendant’s] age and sex discrimination and, therefore, was not voluntary, a court first would have to rule on the validity of the retirement agreement. Such a determination could be made only with reference to ERISA and would affect the existing benefit plan and the relations between [plaintiff] and [defendant] as “principal ERISA entities.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 886 F. Supp. 616 - Hamburger v. Desoutter, Inc.