that the subsidiary develops its own operating budget independent of IU. IU has authority to approve or reject it, but this fact is not enough to label IMS as a puppet organization whose every movement is controlled by the puppet master, IU. The depositions also revealed that IU's management was not involved with the decision to terminate these three employees. Simply stated, there is no evidence to suggest either IU's involvement in the termination or an inference of involvement through the integrated enterprise theory.
The ADEA does not impose liability upon the parent corporation merely because the termination decision of their subsidiary may have been illegal. The burden rests upon the plaintiff to show IMS is not independent of IU. Plaintiffs have failed to meet that burden, therefore, the parent corporation's motion for summary judgment as to Count I of the amended complaint will be granted.
B. Plaintiffs Valenti and Beckwith may not maintain an action against the defendants under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
The above named plaintiffs did not file charges with the commission within the statutorily mandated time period of ninety (90) days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act. Their claims under PHRA are barred and the defendants' motion on this issue will be granted.
C. Are there facts to support a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1140?
Section 1140 of ERISA makes its unlawful for an employer to terminate a worker for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of pension benefits. The burden is upon the plaintiffs to establish this motive.
Plaintiffs have stated during their depositions that they have no proof other than their own beliefs that they were terminated to save money vis-a-vis the vesting of their pension benefits. The plaintiffs can only show that had they continued in their employment they would have received a greater pension benefit. It does not automatically follow that the motive for their termination was to prevent them from receiving greater retirement benefits. Since plaintiffs have been unable to come forward with any evidence to support this cause of action, the court will grant summary judgment for the defendants on Count III of the amended complaint. By disposing of these remaining motions, the issue has been narrowed to focus upon whether the two remaining defendants, IMS and Hackett, based the decision to terminate the plaintiffs on age. The parties shall proceed to trial on this issue. Additionally, the defendants have filed a motion to strike the demand for a jury trial contending that they have no right to a jury trial in an action brought under ERISA (Count III). Since summary judgment as to the ERISA count will be granted in favor of the defendants, this motion to strike is rendered moot. An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 1985, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Memorandum, it is ORDERED that:
1. (a) Defendant IU International Corporation's motion for summary judgment as to Count I is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant IU International Corporation and against the plaintiffs Walter C. Beckwith, Frank J. Valenti and Jay C. Bumpers.
(b) Plaintiffs shall proceed to trial against defendants International Mill Services, Inc. and Clarence A. Hackett Corporation on Count 1 of plaintiffs' amended complaints.
2. The defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count II is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants IU International Corporation, International Mill Services, Inc. and Clarence C. Hackett Corp. and against plaintiffs Frank J. Valenti and Walter C. Beckwith.
3. The defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count III is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants IU International Corporation, International Mill Services, Inc. and Clarence C. Hackett Corp. and against the plaintiffs Frank J. Valenti, Walter C. Beckwith and Jay C. Bumpers.
4. It is also ordered that Counts IV, V, VI and VII of the plaintiffs' amended complaints are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2).
5. Defendants IU International Corporation, International Mill Services, Inc. and Clarence C. Hackett Corp.'s motion to strike demand for jury trial is DISMISSED as moot.