Moritz v. Francis I. duPont & Co.
Citation | 291 Minn. 523,189 N.W.2d 487 |
Decision Date | 20 August 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 42831,42831 |
Parties | , Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,158 Leroy J. MORITZ, Appellant, v. FRANCIS I. duPONT & CO., a partnership, Respondent. |
Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Lifson, Kelber, Abrahamson & Weinstein, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West & Halladay, Robert A. Heiberg, and James H. O'Hagan, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and MURPHY, OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, and KELLY, JJ.
Plaintiff has brought this action against his former employer to recover some $15,000 which he claims was due him from a retirement fund at the time his employment was terminated. The only issue is whether the rules of the New York Stock Exchange by which he agreed to be found, which provide for arbitration in the event of a controversy over employment, constitute a written agreement within the meaning of Minn.St. 572.08. The trial court held that it did and we affirm.
Plaintiff, Leroy Moritz, began his employment with defendant, Francis I. duPont & Co., stock and commodity brokers, in 1954. In January 1957, he applied for approval as a registered representative and agreed in writing 'to abide by the Constitution and Rules of the Board of Governors of the New York Stock Exchange as the same have been or shall be from time to time amended.' In February 1966, Rule 345, par. .17(J), was adopted by the Exchange, as follows:
'I (a registered representative) agree that any controversy between me and any member or member organization or affiliate or subsidiary thereof arising out of my employment or the termination of any employment shall be settled by arbitration at the instance of any such party in accordance with the arbitration procedure prescribed in the Constitution and rules then obtaining of the New York Stock Exchange.'
In January 1967, plaintiff was made a comanager of the company's Minneapolis office, but in December 1967 was demoted to an ordinary salesman. On February 26, 1968, he submitted his resignation. He alleges he was in fact constructively dismissed because of 'intolerable and humiliating conditions of employment' imposed on him. This raises the issue of whether he voluntarily left the services of the company within the meaning of the following provision of the retirement plan, thereby forfeiting his retirement benefits:
'In the event that an employee should voluntarily leave the service of the Company or be dismissed for dishonesty, such employee shall not be entitled to receive any payment from the fund and the amount of his interest in the fund at the time of his separation shall become forfeited and shall inure to the benefit of all the other participants in the fund * * *.'
Plaintiff brought this action for a declaratory judgment to establish his rights under the retirement fund. Defendant invoked the arbitration provisions of the New York Stock...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ayres v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
......§§ 1, 2. See Dickstein v. duPont, 443 F.2d 783, 784-85 (1st Cir. 1971). See also Gavlik Constr. Co. v. H. F. Campbell Co., 526 F.2d ...1971); Isaacson v. Hayden, Stone, Inc., 319 F.Supp. 929 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Moritz v. Francis I. duPont & Co., 291 Minn. 523, 189 N.W.2d 487 (1971). . 9 The existence of ......
-
Fox v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
......§ 2. Dickstein v. DuPont, 443 F.2d 783, 784-85 (1st Cir. 1971). Accordingly, federal law governs all questions regarding the ... Minnesota Supreme Court reached the same conclusion on an indistinguishable set of facts in Moritz v. Francis I. DuPont & Co., 291 Minn. 523, 180 N.W.2d 487 (1971) (per curiam). ......
-
Youmans v. District Court In and For Denver County
...... See Ayres v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 538 F.2d 532 (3rd Cir. 1976); Moritz v. Francis I. duPont & Co., 291 Minn. 523, 189 N.W.2d 487 (1971). A similar ......
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. District Court In and For El Paso County
...... See also, Moritz v. Francis I. du Pont & Co., 291 Minn. 523, 189 N.W.2d 487 (1971). II. It is argued ......