Legal Opinion · Dissent

McClendon v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 1989No. C-7973Published

1DissentGonzalez, Justice

I join with Justice Cook’s conclusions that this cause of action is preempted by ERISA, and that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to filter out meritless cases by summary judgment as a result of today’s opinion. I write, however, to emphasize what the court’s decision does not do. It does not extend the duty of good faith and fair dealing to the employment-at-will doctrine; and it does not decide what damages are available for this new cause of action: I further note that the federal authority that the court finds persuasive is questionable.

By point of error, McClendon invited us…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Arnold v. National County Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. HauckTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Brockmeyer v. Dun & BradstreetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API