Sacks v. McCrory, 62303
| Decision Date | 04 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62303,62303 |
| Citation | 287 S.E.2d 292,160 Ga.App. 430 |
| Parties | SACKS v. McCRORY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Sacks, pro se.
George B. Haley, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellant Sacks, presently a member of the bar and a justice of the peace in Gwinnett County, was formerly employed by Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. ("Bell Labs") as an electrical engineer at its Norcross, Georgia, facility. From April through September 1976, appellant received benefits under the temporary disability provisions of Bell Labs' Plan for Employees' Pensions, Disability Benefits and Death Benefits ("the Plan"). In October 1976, the Employees' Benefit Committee considered and denied appellant's application for permanent disability benefits, which decision was reviewed and affirmed by the Employees' Benefit Claim Review Committee. When appellant refused to return to work, his employment was terminated. He then brought this suit, seeking $1,000,000 in damages from the defendants for conspiracy and tortious interference with his contract for benefits under the Plan. A separate suit filed by appellant against Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., is pending in the Superior Court of Fulton County. See Sacks v. Bell Tel. Labs., 149 Ga.App. 799, 256 S.E.2d 87. The defendants in this case (11 of whom were members of the Benefit Committee or the Review Committee and two of whom were appellant's supervisory personnel at Norcross) filed a motion for summary judgment which was accompanied by an affidavit from each defendant. Appellant now seeks review of the trial court's grant of appellees' motion for summary judgment. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Members of both the Benefit Committee and the Review Committee are employees of Bell Labs who are appointed to their committee positions by the Board of Directors of Bell Labs, and their committee service is considered part of the duties of their employment. Under the plan, the Benefit Committee has the power to administer the Plan and is authorized to grant or deny claims for benefits. Upon receipt of a written request from the employee, the Review Committee is empowered to review the Benefit Committee's decision.
1. Even assuming appellant was contractually entitled to disability benefits, appellees cannot be held liable for tortious interference with that purported contractual right in this case. Appellant maintains that the decision denying him benefits was arbitrary and capricious. However, the Supreme Court, in Collins v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 217 Ga. 41, 120 S.E.2d 764, held that an allegation that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henson v. American Family Corp., s. 68317
...within the scope of their authority and in their capacity as directors and officers of the corporation. Accord Sacks v. McCrory, 160 Ga.App. 430, 287 S.E.2d 292 (1981); Rhine v. Sanders, 100 Ga.App. 68, 74, 110 S.E.2d 128 (1959). Compare Nottingham v. Wrigley, 221 Ga. 386, 144 S.E.2d 749 (1......
-
Singleton v. Itson, A89A0644
...course of their employment. Henson v. American Family Corp., 171 Ga.App. 724, 729-30(4), 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984); Sacks v. McCrory, 160 Ga.App. 430, 431(1), 287 S.E.2d 292 (1981). Such impatience with and animosity toward appellant as they may have exhibited related only to his violation of o......
-
Timberbank, Inc. v. Haynes
...113(2), 378 S.E.2d 136 (1989), Henson v. American Family Corp., 171 Ga.App. 724(4), 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984); and Sacks v. McCrory, 160 Ga.App. 430, 287 S.E.2d 292 (1981), do not constitute authority for a contrary result, as there were no circumstances in those cases which suggested that the ......
-
Lane v. K-Mart Corp., K-MART
...his contractual relationship. See Henson v. American Family Corp., 171 Ga.App. 724, 729(4), 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984); Sacks v. McCrory, 160 Ga.App. 430(1), 287 S.E.2d 292 (1981). The trial court correctly granted summary judgment on appellant's tortious interference 3. "There has been no alleg......