Greathouse v. Glidden Co.

MAURICE E. AMIDEI, Justice, Assigned.

I respectfully dissent. Smith v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 84 F.3d 152 (5th Cir.1996), relied on by Greathouse, supports his claim on the facts and the law. The majority tries to distinguish Smith by erroneously concluding Greathouse is claiming benefits under the Glidden plan because he was not seeking benefits under the Grow Group’s agreement.1 Great-house knew he could not recover any severance benefits under the Glidden Plan because he voluntarily resigned. He does not claim any benefits under the Glidden plan. Actually, Greathouse is claiming under the…