Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ALDINGER v. AMP

September 1, 2005.

STANLEY ALDINGER, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
AMP, INC.; AMP, INC. SEVERANCE PAY PLAN; AMP, INC. EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PLAN, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: YVETTE KANE, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On April 5, 2002, Plaintiffs, all former employees of AMP Incorporated's Signal Conditioning Products Division, filed a civil action against Defendants, seeking severance pay and punitive damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ("ERISA"). The Court held a bench trial on August 26-27, 2003 and makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. Findings of Fact

  1. Plaintiffs are all former employees of AMP Incorporated's ("AMP") Signal Conditioning Products Division located in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 4-41.)

  2. All Plaintiffs, with the exception of George Lurie and Larry Fackler, were non-exempt hourly-paid employees, entitled to the payment of overtime. Plaintiffs Lurie and Fackler were salaried employees exempt from overtime payments. (Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 16.)

  3. AMP is a corporation doing business in and under the laws of Pennsylvania.

  4. On September 1, 1991, AMP adopted a severance pay plan known as the "AMP Incorporated Severance Pay Plan" ("1991 Plan"). AMP adopted a second plan on August 20, 1998, entitled the "AMP Incorporated Employee Severance Plan" ("1998 Plan") (collectively "Severance Plan Defendants"). (Doc. No. 92.) 5. The Severance Plan Defendants are both "employee welfare benefit plans" within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"); 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1). (Docs. No. 1, ¶¶ 45-47; 3, ¶¶ 46-47.)

  6. In 1998, AMP and Spectrum Control, Inc. ("Spectrum"), began discussions of a possible sale of certain assets in AMP's Signal Conditioning Products Division to Spectrum. These assets included two facilities in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, which housed the Signal Conditioning Products Division facilities. (Doc. No. 92.)

  7. On February 1, 1999, AMP announced to the Signal Conditioning Products Division employees working at its Elizabethtown facilities that the assets of that division would be sold to Spectrum. A memorandum concerning the sale was prepared by AMP and distributed to Plaintiffs at a meeting held for the employees of the Elizabethtown facility. This memorandum stated, inter alia, that "Spectrum Control will compensate employees in a similar manner. While salaries and specific benefits may change somewhat, in the aggregate, your compensation and benefits package will be equivalent to that of AMP." The Memorandum also stated that "Spectrum Control will honor your AMP service credit in calculating severance benefits." (Doc. No. 92; T.R. at 6-9; Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 1.)*fn1

  8. AMP and Spectrum entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, which became effective on March 26, 1999. There was no merger or consolidation with Spectrum, and Spectrum did not acquire any stock as a part of the Asset Purchase Agreement. (Doc. No. 92.)

  9. AMP separated Plaintiffs from employment effective March 26, 1999. Plaintiffs commenced employment with Spectrum on March 27, 1999, reporting to work for Spectrum for the first time on Monday, March 29, 1999. Plaintiffs worked for Spectrum at the same facilities, worked the same shifts, at the same jobs, with the same wages as they had with AMP immediately prior to the sale. (Id.)

  10. On April 2, 1999, Tyco International Ltd. ("Tyco") acquired more than thirty percent of the outstanding shares of AMP stock. (Doc. No. 92.)

  11. Beginning in April, 2001, Spectrum began terminating Plaintiffs' positions within the Elizabethtown facility.*fn2 Contrary to the representations in the 1991 Memorandum, Plaintiffs did not receive service credit for their years at AMP in calculating severance benefits under Spectrum's severance plan. (Doc. No. 92, Exhibit A; Defendants' Exhibits 8-43.)

  12. On or about December 20, 2001, Plaintiff Donna Coble sent a letter to the AMP Incorporated Severance Pay Plan to the attention of Mark Smith requesting information regarding the "AMP, Incorporated Employee Severance Plan for 1999." Plaintiff Coble mailed the letter to the Harrisburg general mailing address of Tyco. (Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 6.)

  13. At the time the letter was sent, Tyco no longer employed Mark Smith. Also, AMP never sponsored a severance pay plan known as the AMP Employee Severance Pay Plan of 1999." (T.R. 305-06.)

  14. On December 26, 2001 and February 15, 2002, counsel for Plaintiffs sent letters addressed to the AMP, Inc. Severance Pay Plan to the attention of the Plan Administrator. These letters were mailed to Tyco's general ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.