Kirkland v. Ssl Americas, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 02-A-1139-N.,CIV.A. 02-A-1139-N. |
| Parties | Kipley Wess KIRKLAND, Plaintiff, v. SSL AMERICAS, INC., and SSL U.S. Manufacturing, LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Gary R. New, Robertson, Brunson & New, LLC, Eufaula, AL, D. Mitchell Henry, William H. Webster, Webster & Henry PC, Montgomery, AL, for Kipley Wess Kirkland, plaintiff.
Robert E. Rigrish, Jefferson B. Blandford, Ford & Harrison, Atlanta, GA, Steven Michael Stastny, Ford & Harrison LLP, Birmingham, AL, for SSL Americas, Inc., SSL U.S. Manufacturing, LLC, defendants.
This cause is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16), filed by the Defendants', SSL Americas, Inc. ("SSL") and SSL U.S. Manufacturing, LLC ("SSL-US"), on January 31, 2003. Plaintiff Kipley Wess Kirkland ("Kirkland") originally filed this lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Barbour County, Alabama, on September 26, 2002. In his Complaint, Kirkland brings state law claims for breach of contract, fraud by suppression, unjust enrichment, fraud, deceit and fraudulent deceit, and conversion against SSL and SSL-US (collectively, "the Defendants"). These charges emerged from SSL-US's decision to deny Kirkland severance benefits after SSL-US sold the Eufaula, Alabama, manufacturing facility where Kirkland worked to Custom Services International, Inc. The Defendants removed this action to this court on October 7, 2002, (Doc. #1), on the basis of federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The Defendants also contend that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§1001 et seq., preempts Kirkland's state law claims. Kirkland has not filed a motion to remand.
After a careful and thorough review of the parties' submissions, the court concludes that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment is due to be GRANTED.
A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations in the complaint. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); see also Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir.1986) () (citation omitted). The court will accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and will view them in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hishon, 467 U.S. at 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229; Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir.2002). Furthermore, the threshold is "exceedingly low" for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir.1985).
SSL-US employed Kirkland as a salaried employee.1 Kirkland worked at SSUS's Dothan, Alabama, facility, and he transferred to SSL-US's Eufaula, Alabama, facility in May of 2000. SSL-US's employee policies and procedures covered Kirkland and listed his benefits. Among these employment policies and procedures, two are of particular importance to this case, Procedure 16 and Procedure 30. Procedure 16 originally was drafted on June 15, 1991, and was revised on November 28, 1995. Procedure 30 originally was authored on July 27, 1994, and was revised on November 30, 1994. Aladan Corporation ("Aladan") authored both the original policies and the revisions. At the time of the drafting of the procedures, Aladan owned the Eufaula facility. Aladan later sold the facility to London International Group, Inc. ("London"), which later became SSL-US. Both Procedure 16 and Procedure 30 were in force during the course of Kirkland's employment.
Procedure 16 has as its subject heading "Severance Benefits for Terminating Full-Time Salaried Exempt and Salaried Non-Exempt Employees." The language of the procedure provides three separate benefits to full-time salaried exempt and salaried non-exempt employees who are Procedure 16, p. 1, Sec. 11(A).
1. Salary continuation will be calculated at the regular salary rate based on the following guidelines:
1. Under $15,000 2 weeks pay
2. $15,000-$25,000 3 weeks pay
3. $25,000-$40,000 4 weeks pay
4. $40,000-$60,000 6 weeks pay
5. $60,000-$80,000 8 weeks pay
6. $80,000 and up 10 weeks pay
2. Compensation for length of service In addition to the aforementioned, length of service will be calculated at the rate of two weeks' pay at the regular rate for every full year employed with the Company, (rounded to the next year), without a break in service.
3. Continuation of insurance benefits Insurance benefits provided by the Company at the time of separation will remain in effect during the length of the salary continuation.
Id. at 1-2. Procedure 16 further states that no severance benefits will be paid to employees terminated for cause unless the terminated employee has a contract calling for the payment of severance benefits. Id. at 2. Procedure 16 also allows the company to offer severance benefits in "certain instances of voluntary separation." Id. If the company offers severance benefits in such a case, the benefits will be paid in accordance with the schedule listed above. Id. Additionally, Procedure 16 states that "[n]o severance pay will be granted for resignation." Id. at 3.
Regarding administration, Procedure 16's language states that Id. The Administrator has "the power and discretion to construe the terms of the Policy and to determine all questions arising in connection with the administration, interpretation and application of the Policy." Id. at 4. The Administrator's decision shall be binding and conclusive on all parties. Id. Procedure 16 also contains a specific reference to ERISA:
The Administrator may establish procedures, correct any defect, supply any information, or reconcile any inconsistency in such manner and to such extent as shall be deemed necessary or advisable to carry out the purpose of the Policy; provided, however that any procedure, discretionary act, interpretation or construction shall be done in a nondiscriminatory manner based upon uniform principles consistently applied and shall comply with the terms of ERISA and all regulations issued pursuant thereto.
Id. The Administrator has "the discretion to determine all questions relating to the eligibility of employees to participate or remain a participant hereunder and to receive benefits under the Policy." Id. Procedure 16 gives the Administrator the authority "to interpret the provisions of the Policy and to make and publish such rules for regulation of the Policy." Id. at 5.
Procedure 30 has as its subject title "Severance Allowance Policy." Under Procedure 30, SSL-US "may offer a severance allowance to all regular, full-time employees who are involuntarily terminated due to a Company decision to close a plant/facility." Procedure 30, p. 1 (emphasis in original). Section I of Procedure 30 lists the requirements for eligibility for benefits:
A. The Company will pay [a] severance allowance to all regular, full-time employees who are involuntarily terminated as a result of a Company decision to close a plant/facility.
B. This severance allowance will not be paid if an employee leaves or is terminated for any of the following reasons:
1. Voluntary resignation prior to the Company-scheduled separation date.
2. Cause.
3. Excessive absenteeism/related attendance problems.
4. Unsatisfactory performance (as outlined in the Code of Conduct).
5. Retirement.
6. Disability/death.
7. Sale of the plant/facility whereby job continuation is offered under different ownership.
C. Temporary agency employees are not eligible for severance allowance.
D. An employee will not be paid severance if another job has been offered by the Company at any of its affiliates/divisions, and the offer has been accepted by the employee.
The amount of the severance allowance under Procedure 30 is determined according to the following chart:
Years of Weeks of
Continuous Service Base Salary
Less than one year 1 (one)
More than one year but less than two 2 (two)
More than two years but less than three 3 (three)
Three years and over 4 (four)
Id. at 2. Under the language of Procedure 30, the severance pay will be paid weekly "at the same time that paychecks are normally processed." Id. at 3. While terminated employees are receiving severance pay pursuant to Procedure 30, SSL-US will continue to subsidize the employees' group health and dental insurance, and the employees remain eligible for SSL-US's profit incentive plan and 401 (k) plan. Id. Procedure 30 also addresses the terminated employees' seniority: "The employee's seniority will terminate on the last day of active employment." Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).
The administration of Procedure 30 is identical to Procedure 16.2 The Administrator 3
has "the discretion to determine all questions relating to the eligibility of employees to participate or remain a participant hereunder and to receive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kalian at Poconos v. Saw Creek Estates Community
...diversity jurisdiction. See Pippett v. Waterford Dev., LLC, 166 F.Supp.2d 233, 236 (E.D.Pa.2001); see also Kirkland v. SSL Americas, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1333 (M.D.Ala.2003)(citing cases). The citizenship of a limited partnership "is deemed to be that of the persons composing such asso......
-
Wilson v. Coman
...Report"). The court concludes that the second part of the "plan, fund, or program" test is satisfied. See Kirkland v. SSL Ams., Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1335-36 (M.D.Ala.2003) (concluding that class of beneficiaries prong is satisfied if the terms of the benefit documents list or describe ......
-
Cantrell v. Currey
...benefits. See Butero v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 1207, 1214 (11th Cir.1999); see also Kirkland v. SSL Americas, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1334 (M.D.Ala.2003). In this case, the Court will examine these five elements to determine if Rock-Tenn's Severance Agreement represents a......
-
Monk v. Performance Contractors Inc
...its analysis on the plaintiff's "knowledge, whether actual or imputed," about Performance's claims process. Kirkland v. SSL Americas, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 1326 (M.D. Ala. 2003). Many courts have found that a reasonable employee could ascertain the procedure for receipt of benefits where info......