Opinion ID: 3014383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Factual Situation

Text: Argued November 18, 2003 TPC is a closely held corporation. Thompson owned 80 of the 100 Before: RENDELL, BARRY and outstanding shares, and Fields owned the CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges. remaining 20. Fields started working for TPC in 1955 at age 13. On May 7, 1990, contractual benefits in the event of Fields’s he entered into a four-page Employment voluntary termination: Contract with TPC. It provided that Fields If during the term of this Contract, Jerry was to have the “designated titles” of Vice [Fields] voluntarily terminates his President and Chief Operations Officer, employment with Thompson [Printing and that he was to “perform the duties Company], then it is understood by and attendant thereto.” The agreement defined between the parties hereto that the salary the term of employment as continuing until compensation, employment benefits, and June 14, 2000, and detailed compensation all retirement benefits shall cease as of the and other benefits to which Fields would date of the termination. be entitled in exchange for his services.1 It also provided for annual raises of ten percent each year during the 10-year term, It also contained a broad non-forfeiture and, further, that in the event of clause in favor of Fields: Thompson’s death, Fields’s salary would be doubled within 30 days. The Contract This Contract shall be non-terminable by gave TPC the right to discontinue the Thompson [Printing Company]. In the event Thompson [Printing Company] shall terminate the employment of Jerry 1 [Fields], all of the benefits as contained The Contract provided Fields with a herein shall continue in accordance with starting annual salary of $131,000, the terms and provisions of this inclusion in any and all employee benefit Agreement. programs and packages, annual vacation leave, a credit card for his use, a new car - “a Cadillac or the equivalent at [Fields’s] The Contract did not differentiate between choice” - every four years, a second termination with or without cause, vehicle (every time TPC provided Fields providing for continuation of the benefits with a new car, the old vehicle which was simply if TPC “shall terminate” Fields. being replaced would become the second vehicle), death benefits for Fields’s wife in On August 11, 1997, three female the event that he died prior to retirement, employees made allegations to Thompson, and retirement benefits. Commencing then CEO, that Fields, by now titled TPC’s after the ten-year term, his retirement President, had sexually harassed them by benefits included a $2,000/week payment, creating a hostile work environment. On the continued use of the credit card, the August 13, Thompson telephoned Fields, continued use of the two cars (with a new who was vacationing with his family, and car every sixth year, instead of every fired him. TPC refused to pay Fields any fourth year), and continued medical f u r t h e r c o m pe nsation und er th e benefits with the premiums to be paid by Employment Contract after that date. TPC. 2 The three female employees filed a “ e n t i r e c o n t r o v e r s y ” d o c tr i n e. lawsuit, Zarillo v. Thompson Printing Co., Furthermore, they claimed that Fields had L-9076-97, in the Superior Court of New breached the Employment Contract by Jersey against TPC, Fields, Thompson and engaging in acts of sexual harassment, another supervisor. No findings were terminating Fields’s rights, as well as their made since the claims were settled without obligations, under the Contract. any admission of wrongdoing by any of The parties then filed cross motions the defendants. for summary judgment. Defendants’ While the Zarillo lawsuit was still Statement of Uncontested M aterial Facts pending, Fields commenced a civil action d e t a il e d the alleg atio ns of the against TPC and Thompson in the United Zarillo plaintiffs.2 Defendants argued that States District Court for the District of by his actions Fields had breached the New Jersey. He asserted a federal claim Employment Contract, forfeiting his rights under the Employment Retirement Income under the agreement and warranting the Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 entry of summary judgment in their favor. et seq., contending that the retirement However, Fields claimed that not only benefits specified in the Employment were the facts in dispute, but they were not Contract were protected by ERISA, and material to the resolution of his claims that TPC’s failure to pay those benefits because the Employment Contract violated the statute. In addition, he sought guaranteed that if he was terminated by reinstatement of his salary and benefits, including some that had accrued prior to 2 his termination and had never been paid, One employee claimed that Fields had under a variety of state law theories, grabbed her buttocks on one occasion and including the New Jersey Wage Law, N.J. attempted to touch her breast on another, Stat. Ann. § 34:11-4.3, breach of contract, and had repeatedly made lewd and unjust enrichment, conversion, quantum sexually suggestive comments. Several meruit, and breach of the covenant of good incidents were specifically outlined, such faith and fair dealing. He also asserted a as Fields’s request, during the company’s minority shareholder oppression claim search for a part-time receptionist, to let under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 14A:12-C-7(1)(c), him know if any of the applicants had big arguing that his rights as a minority breasts so that he could come out to look. shareholder had been violated by Another plaintiff alleged that Fields Thompson’s actions. repeatedly told her to wear short skirts, one time going so far as to draw a line on a Thompson and TPC replied, wall and say, “I don’t want your skirt to be denying Fields’s allegations and claiming below that line.” She also claimed that that Fields’s ERISA claim was barred by Fields attempted to pull up her skirt on at 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b), and that his state law least two occasions. claims were barred by New Jersey’s 3 TPC, his benefits were to continue. District Court’s order granting partial summary judgment. They essentially raise The District Court granted Fields’s three issues, namely, whether the Court summary judgment motion with regards to erred in determining 1) that Fields’s suit his ERISA, New Jersey Wage Law, breach was not barred by the entire controversy of contract, unjust enrichment and doctrine; 2) that TPC was obligated to pay quantum meruit claims, but denied the Fields the compensation; and, 3) that motion with respect to the oppression Thompson should be held personally claim. The Court held that the entire liable. Fields cross-appeals the District controversy doctrine was inapplicable as Court’s determination that he was not “the validity of the sexual harassment entitled to attorneys’ fees under ERISA, claims [was] entirely immaterial to the contending that its analysis was flawed, adjudication of the parties’ rights and based on existing case precedent. obligations under the Employment Agreement.” It then determined that, Our review of an order granting under the plain language of the Contract’s summary judgment is plenary. Morton non-forfeiture clause, Fields was entitled Int’l, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 343 to both retirement and pre-retirement F.3d 669, 679 (3d Cir. 2003). Under benefits, rejecting defendants’ arguments Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), that enforcing the agreement would violate summary judgment is proper where no public policy or that Fields had breached genuine issue of material fact exists, and the agreement. It also held Thompson the moving party is entitled to judgment as jointly and severally liable based on its a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, view that Thompson had not drawn any 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In distinction between himself and TPC, so determining whether a dispute regarding a both were liable. Subsequently, Fields material fact exists, we draw all reasonable dismissed the oppression claim, and the inferences in favor of the non-moving parties agreed upon the amount of party. Morton, 343 F.3d at 680. compensation due under the Contract, but reserved the right to appeal the District Court’s ruling. A. The Entire Controversy Doctrine The District Court had jurisdiction We first address defendants’ over Fields’s ERISA claim pursuant to 29 argument that the New Jersey entire U.S.C. § 1132, and over the state law controversy doctrine required Fields to claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We bring his claims against TPC and have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Thompson as cross-claims in the Zarillo § 1291. sexual harassment action, and that because he did not do so, application of the