mcclendon
argued
october
decided
december
petitioner
company
fired
respondent
mcclendon
filed
wrongful
discharge
action
various
state
law
tort
contract
theories
alleging
principal
reason
termination
company
desire
avoid
contributing
pension
fund
texas
granted
company
summary
judgment
state
appeals
affirmed
ruling
mcclendon
employment
terminable
state
reversed
remanded
trial
holding
public
policy
required
recognition
exception
doctrine
therefore
recovery
permitted
wrongful
discharge
action
plaintiff
prove
principal
reason
termination
employer
desire
avoid
contributing
paying
benefits
employee
pension
fund
distinguishing
federal
cases
holding
similar
claims
preempted
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
reasoned
mcclendon
seeking
future
lost
wages
recovery
mental
anguish
punitive
damages
rather
lost
pension
benefits
held
erisa
explicit
language
structure
purpose
demonstrate
congressional
intent
preempt
state
common
law
claim
employee
unlawfully
discharged
prevent
attainment
benefits
plan
pp
cause
action
case
expressly
preempted
erisa
broadly
declares
statute
supersedes
state
laws
including
decisions
effect
law
relate
covered
employee
benefit
plan
order
prevail
cause
action
formulated
texas
plaintiff
must
plead
trial
must
find
erisa
plan
exists
employer
motive
terminating
employment
existence
plan
critical
factor
establishing
liability
trial
inquiry
must
directed
plan
judicially
created
cause
action
relate
erisa
plan
cf
mackey
lanier
collection
agency
service
fort
halifax
packing
coyne
distinguished
arguing
plan
irrelevant
cause
action
issue
employer
improper
motive
mcclendon
misses
point
state
analysis
simply
cause
action
plan
similarly
unavailing
mcclendon
argument
defines
state
include
state
instrumentality
purporting
regulate
terms
conditions
covered
plans
causes
preempt
state
laws
affect
plan
terms
conditions
administration
focus
employer
termination
decision
argument
misreads
consequently
misapprehends
purpose
expanding
erisa
general
definition
state
include
state
instrumentalities
whose
actions
might
otherwise
considered
state
law
preemption
purposes
render
relate
language
superfluous
since
congress
need
said
state
laws
preempted
foreclosed
precedents
see
mackey
supra
preemption
also
supported
goal
ensuring
uniformity
pension
law
since
allowing
state
based
actions
like
one
issue
might
subject
plans
plan
sponsors
conflicting
substantive
requirements
developed
courts
jurisdiction
pp
texas
cause
action
also
preempted
conflicts
directly
erisa
cause
action
mcclendon
claim
falls
squarely
within
erisa
prohibits
discharge
plan
participant
purpose
interfering
attainment
right
plan
however
imply
preemption
state
remedies
absent
special
features
warranting
preemption
see
english
general
electric
special
featur
exists
form
authorizes
civil
action
plan
participant
enforce
erisa
plan
terms
gives
federal
district
courts
exclusive
jurisdiction
actions
held
exclusive
remedy
rights
guaranteed
erisa
including
provided
pilot
life
ins
dedeaux
thus
lower
attempt
distinguish
case
one
within
erisa
purview
without
merit
moreover
since
basis
language
limiting
erisa
actions
seek
pension
benefits
clear
relief
requested
well
within
power
federal
courts
fact
particular
plaintiff
seeking
recovery
pension
benefits
answer
preemption
argument
pp
delivered
opinion
unanimous
respect
parts
opinion
respect
part
rehnquist
white
scalia
kennedy
souter
joined
hollis
hurd
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
glen
nager
william
little
christopher
wright
argued
cause
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
solicitor
general
starr
deputy
solicitor
general
shapiro
allen
geldman
nathaniel
spiller
john
tabormina
argued
cause
respondent
brief
michael
saunders
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
chamber
commerce
america
et
al
zachary
fasman
stephen
bokat
equal
employment
advisory
council
et
al
robert
williams
douglas
mcdowell
elizabeth
reesman
carl
jordan
washington
legal
foundation
daniel
popeo
richard
samp
john
scully
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
national
employment
lawyers
association
et
al
jeffrey
lewis
janet
bond
arterton
national
governors
association
et
al
charles
rothfeld
benna
ruth
solomon
thomas
bright
pro
se
justice
delivered
opinion
case
presents
question
whether
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
stat
amended
et
preempts
state
common
law
claim
employee
unlawfully
discharged
prevent
attainment
benefits
plan
covered
erisa
petitioner
employed
respondent
perry
mcclendon
salesman
distributor
construction
equipment
mcclendon
worked
company
nine
years
eight
months
company
fired
citing
reduction
force
mcclendon
sued
company
texas
state
alleging
pension
vested
another
four
months
principal
reason
termination
company
desire
avoid
making
contributions
pension
fund
mcclendon
realize
pursuant
applicable
regulations
see
cfr
regulation
already
credited
sufficient
service
vest
pension
plan
requirement
mcclendon
sought
compensatory
punitive
damages
various
tort
contract
theories
assert
cause
action
erisa
period
discovery
company
moved
obtained
summary
judgment
claims
state
appeals
affirmed
holding
mcclendon
employment
terminable
decision
texas
reversed
remanded
trial
majority
reasoned
notwithstanding
traditional
doctrine
public
policy
imposes
certain
limitations
upon
employer
power
discharge
employees
citing
title
vernon
pamphlet
erisa
majority
concluded
state
interest
protecting
employees
interests
pension
plans
support
noted
passage
erisa
demonstrates
great
significance
attached
income
security
retirement
purposes
ibid
accordingly
held
texas
law
plaintiff
recover
wrongful
discharge
action
established
principal
reason
termination
employer
desire
avoid
contributing
paying
benefits
employee
pension
fund
ibid
noted
federal
courts
held
similar
claims
preempted
erisa
distinguished
present
case
basis
mcclendon
seeking
lost
pension
benefits
instead
seeking
future
lost
wages
mental
anguish
punitive
damages
result
wrongful
discharge
emphasis
original
issue
divided
state
federal
courts
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
erisa
comprehensive
statute
designed
promote
interests
employees
beneficiaries
employee
benefit
plans
shaw
delta
air
lines
statute
imposes
participation
funding
vesting
requirements
pension
plans
also
sets
various
uniform
standards
including
rules
concerning
reporting
disclosure
fiduciary
responsibility
pension
welfare
plans
citation
omitted
part
closely
integrated
regulatory
system
congress
included
various
safeguards
preclude
abuse
completely
secure
rights
expectations
brought
landmark
reform
legislation
prominent
among
safeguards
three
provisions
particular
relevance
case
erisa
broad
preemption
provision
proscribes
interference
rights
protected
erisa
carefully
integrated
civil
enforcement
scheme
one
essential
tools
accomplishing
stated
purposes
erisa
pilot
life
ins
dedeaux
congress
expressly
included
broadly
worded
preemption
provision
comprehensive
statute
erisa
task
discerning
congressional
intent
considerably
simplified
erisa
set
forth
congress
provided
except
provided
subsection
section
provisions
subchapter
subchapter
iii
chapter
shall
supersede
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
described
section
title
exempt
section
title
preemption
clause
conspicuous
breadth
fmc
ante
deliberately
expansive
language
designed
establish
pension
plan
regulation
exclusively
federal
concern
pilot
life
supra
quoting
alessi
key
found
words
relate
congress
used
words
broad
sense
rejecting
limited
preemption
language
made
clause
applicable
state
laws
relating
specific
subjects
covered
erisa
shaw
supra
moreover
underscore
intent
expansively
applied
congress
used
equally
broad
language
defining
state
law
preempted
laws
include
laws
decisions
rules
regulations
state
action
effect
law
law
relates
employee
benefit
plan
normal
sense
phrase
connection
reference
plan
shaw
supra
broad
common
sense
meaning
state
law
may
relate
benefit
plan
thereby
preempted
even
law
specifically
designed
affect
plans
effect
indirect
pilot
life
supra
see
also
alessi
supra
preemption
also
precluded
simply
state
law
consistent
erisa
substantive
requirements
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
neither
limitations
applicable
case
dealing
generally
applicable
statute
makes
reference
indeed
functions
irrespective
existence
erisa
plan
cost
defending
lawsuit
mere
administrative
burden
existence
pension
plan
critical
factor
establishing
liability
state
wrongful
discharge
law
result
cause
action
relates
merely
pension
benefits
essence
pension
plan
difficulty
concluding
cause
action
texas
recognized
claim
employer
wrongfully
terminated
plaintiff
primarily
employer
desire
avoid
contributing
paying
benefits
employee
pension
fund
relate
plan
within
meaning
therefore
preempted
virtually
taken
granted
state
laws
specifically
designed
affect
employee
benefit
plans
preempted
mackey
supra
mackey
statute
express
reference
erisa
plans
established
designed
consequently
preempted
facts
slightly
different
principle
texas
cause
action
makes
specific
reference
indeed
premised
existence
pension
plan
words
texas
cause
action
allows
recovery
plaintiff
proves
principal
reason
termination
employer
desire
avoid
contributing
paying
benefits
employee
pension
fund
thus
order
prevail
plaintiff
must
plead
must
find
erisa
plan
exists
employer
motive
terminating
employment
inquiry
must
directed
plan
judicially
created
cause
action
relate
erisa
plan
similarly
unavailing
mcclendon
argument
limited
narrower
language
set
forth
provides
term
state
includes
state
political
subdivisions
thereof
agency
instrumentality
either
purports
regulate
directly
indirectly
terms
conditions
employee
benefit
plans
covered
subchapter
flaw
argument
misreads
consequently
misapprehends
purpose
erisa
definition
state
found
defines
term
state
district
columbia
puerto
rico
virgin
islands
american
samoa
guam
wake
island
canal
zone
section
expands
rather
restricts
definition
preemption
purposes
order
include
state
agencies
instrumentalities
whose
actions
might
otherwise
considered
state
law
congress
intended
restrict
erisa
preemptive
effect
state
laws
purporting
regulate
plan
terms
conditions
surely
done
placing
restriction
adjunct
definition
section
using
broad
phrase
relate
preemption
section
moreover
construed
mcclendon
urges
relate
language
superfluous
congress
need
said
state
laws
preempted
moreover
precedents
foreclose
argument
mackey
held
erisa
preempted
georgia
garnishment
statute
excluded
garnishment
erisa
plan
benefits
mackey
supra
law
clearly
regulate
terms
conditions
plans
yet
found
preemption
mackey
demonstrates
read
restrictively
conclusion
cause
action
case
preempted
supported
understanding
purposes
provision
section
intended
ensure
plans
plan
sponsors
subject
uniform
body
benefit
law
goal
minimize
administrative
financial
burden
complying
conflicting
directives
among
federal
government
otherwise
inefficiencies
created
work
detriment
plan
beneficiaries
fmc
ante
citing
fort
halifax
shaw
allowing
state
based
actions
like
one
issue
subject
plans
plan
sponsors
burdens
unlike
congress
sought
foreclose
particularly
disruptive
potential
conflict
substantive
law
foreseeable
state
courts
exercising
common
law
powers
might
develop
different
substantive
standards
applicable
employer
conduct
requiring
tailoring
plans
employer
conduct
peculiarities
law
jurisdiction
outcome
fundamentally
odds
goal
uniformity
congress
sought
implement
even
express
preemption
case
texas
cause
action
preempted
conflicts
directly
erisa
cause
action
mcclendon
claim
falls
squarely
within
ambit
erisa
provides
shall
unlawful
person
discharge
fine
suspend
expel
discipline
discriminate
participant
beneficiary
exercising
right
entitled
provisions
employee
benefit
plan
purpose
interfering
attainment
right
participant
may
become
entitled
plan
emphasis
added
mere
existence
federal
regulatory
enforcement
scheme
however
even
considerably
detailed
one
imply
preemption
state
remedies
english
general
electric
accordingly
must
look
special
features
warranting
preemption
ibid
quoting
hillsborough
county
automated
medical
laboratories
civil
action
may
brought
participant
enjoin
act
practice
violates
provision
subchapter
terms
plan
obtain
appropriate
equitable
relief
redress
violations
ii
enforce
provisions
subchapter
terms
plan
except
actions
subsection
section
district
courts
shall
exclusive
jurisdiction
civil
actions
subchapter
brought
participant
emphasis
added
detailed
provisions
set
forth
comprehensive
civil
enforcement
scheme
represents
careful
balancing
need
prompt
fair
claims
settlement
procedures
public
interest
encouraging
formation
employee
benefit
plans
policy
choices
reflected
inclusion
certain
remedies
exclusion
others
federal
scheme
completely
undermined
participants
beneficiaries
free
obtain
remedies
state
law
congress
rejected
erisa
six
carefully
integrated
civil
enforcement
provisions
found
statute
finally
enacted
provide
strong
evidence
congress
intend
authorize
remedies
simply
forgot
incorporate
expressly
quoting
massachusetts
mutual
life
ins
russell
rely
evidence
concluding
requirements
conflict
preemption
satisfied
case
unquestionably
texas
cause
action
purports
provide
remedy
violation
right
expressly
guaranteed
exclusively
enforced
accordingly
hold
hen
clear
may
fairly
assumed
activities
state
purports
regulate
protected
erisa
due
regard
federal
enactment
requires
state
jurisdiction
must
yield
cf
lingle
norge
division
magic
chef
preceding
discussion
also
responds
texas
attempt
distinguish
case
one
within
erisa
purview
exclusive
remedy
vindicating
rights
basis
language
limiting
erisa
actions
seek
pension
benefits
clear
relief
requested
well
within
power
federal
courts
provide
consequently
answer
preemption
argument
particular
plaintiff
seeking
recovery
pension
benefits
judgment
texas
reversed
ordered
fn
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
parts
opinion
see
fitzgerald
codex
erisa
preempts
state
wrongful
discharge
actions
premised
employer
interference
attainment
rights
employee
benefit
plans
pane
rca
sorosky
burroughs
accord
conaway
eastern
associated
coal
contra
mart
ponsock
hovey
lutheran
medical
center
edny
savodnik
korvettes
edny