Opinion ID: 3021558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: The facts are taken directly from our not precedential opinion in Emilien v. Stull Technologies Corp., 70 Fed.Appx. 635 (3d Cir. July 18, 2003): In 1998, Stull, a manufacturer of injection-molded closures for use in industry, decided to shut down its facility in Randolph, New Jersey, where Marie worked, and to transfer its operations to another Stull factory located in Somerset, New Jersey. The decision was announced to Marie and other Randolph-based employees on August 18, 1998 (“the August 18 letter”). At the same time, Stull sent to these Randolph employees a separate letter (“the companion letter”) in which it extended offers of continuing employment to those who advised management in writing by September 4, 1998, of their willingness to work at the Somerset location. The companion letter explained that, for those who did not transfer, employment with Stull would terminate on November 6, 1998. With a view to retaining non-transferring employees’ services up to that date, the letter announced a Special Severance Program (“SSP”) under which certain benefits would be extended to those who worked through the plant’s closure on November 6. To qualify for those benefits, employees were required to signify their acceptance of the SSP not later than October 12, 1998, by executing a “General Release and Waiver Agreement” through which they surrendered wrongful-discharge and other employment-related claims. The terms of the SSP also required them to render satisfactory service at the Randolph location “on a continuous basis from now until November 6, 1998 or until released on some earlier date by Stull.” On 2 September 1, 1998, Marie executed a written statement declining Stull’s offer of employment at its Somerset location. On October 11, 1998, she submitted her timely written election to participate in the SSP. Presumably, Marie intended to work through November 6, 1998 so as to meet the SSP’s terms. However, illness prevented her from doing so. Approximately two years earlier, in October of 1996, she had been diagnosed with HIV and tuberculosis, and these maladies had caused her absence from work on many occasions throughout 1997 and 1998, including a hospital stay in February of 1998. After that hospitalization, her doctor described her as being “up and down,” until October 21, 1998, approximately two weeks before the Randolph plant closure. On that day, she was severely stricken while at work, and was transported by ambulance to the Morristown Memorial Hospital. She returned to her home for a time, although she remained unable two work. She was hospitalized once again on December 28, 1998, and remained there until her death on January 7, 1999. Shortly after Marie became ill on October 21, Loretta Goldstein, a senior representative of Stull’s Human Resources Department, composed a letter to Marie bearing the date of October 20, 1998 (“the October 30 letter”). The letter stated that Stull had decided retroactively to “separate” Marie as of October 21, 1998, the day she was stricken. There is some dispute, however, as to whether the letter was actually mailed. It bears a notation stating “Mailed 11/2/98,” but Goldstein admitted that she had no actual recollection of mailing that particular letter. Instead, she stated that she relied on her regular practice of taking letters of that nature to a particular inter-office location for mailing by someone else. Also, although Goldstein represents that Stull customarily sends such letters by certified mail, Stull has not been able to produce either the white receipt issued by the Post Office when it accepts certified mail, or the green receipt showing that it was duly delivered and received. Berthony, Marie’s husband, denies that either he or Marie ever received such a letter. That letter, if mailed, was the only means by which Stull informed Marie (who was hospitalized at the time) of her termination. Equally important, it was the means by which Stull sought to discharge its statutory duty to inform Marie that, due to her termination, she would be excluded from the company’s group medical benefit plan and would have to complete and return Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) 3 election forms if she wished to retain medical insurance protection. It also included forms with which Marie could have applied for state disability benefits. Since Marie did not return the COBRA election or state disability forms, her medical coverage terminated in November of 1998. Even without the October 30 letter, Marie might have learned of the need to undergo COBRA conversion had Stull, and Goldstein in particular, engaged in their regular (albeit voluntary) notification procedures. Goldstein testified that it was Stull’s usual practice, and her own personal responsibility, in the case of former employees who had not been heard from in response to CORBA conversion notices to investigate the matter by telephoning them. In this instance, Goldstein stated that no call was made to Marie and she blamed the tumult created by the closing of the Randolph facility. She did, however, admit her knowledge of Marie’s health problems and that those problems would have made continuous insurance coverage critical. Assuming arguendo that Stull mailed the October 30 letter, there is also a dispute regarding its legal effect – Goldstein was unsure whether it terminated Marie as of October 21, or if it instead placed her on disability leave of absence. Goldstein first testified that the October 30 letter’s references to Marie’s “separation” meant that Marie had been terminated, and that the October 30 letter was intended as her official notice of termination. But later, in discussing a related issue, Goldstein testified that Marie did not qualify for severance pay because on November 3, “she was on leave of absence.” To Stull, the distinction is critical, for the SSP conditions severance pay on employees “remaining employed by Stull on a continuous basis from now until November 6 or until released on some earlier date by Stull.” Further, only those employees who are “not on a Leave of Absence, regardless of length of service, as of the Inactive Date” are eligible for the SSP. Stull submits that, as it terminated Marie on October 21, she did not fulfill the condition precedent to qualify for severance pay, namely working until November 6. Berthony, her husband, contends that Marie qualified for severance pay regardless of whether the October 30 letter placed her on leave of absence or terminated her – if it placed her on leave of absence, she was still employed on a continuous basis, and if it terminated her, that constituted an “earlier release” by Stull. 4 In any event, Berthony represents that neither he nor Marie learned of her termination or insurance cutoff until November of 1998, when he sought prescription medicine from a pharmacy and was told that his insurance through Stull had been cancelled. He contacted the Stull HR Department, which stated that Marie had been informed of her benefit cancellation via the October 30 letter. Berthony protested that the cutoff was inappropriate regardless of the purported notice in that letter, for under the terms of the SSP, an employee’s enrollment in the group medical benefit plan continues until the end of the month following her inactive date, which was alleged to be November 6, 1998. Under this interpretation, Stull was accountable for the $23,095 in medical costs Marie incurred through December 31, 1998. Stull, however, submits that the SSP extended regular health insurance only to the end of the month of the inactive date, i.e., until November 30. In an attempt to clarify the situation, Berthony requested from Stull a copy of the October 30 letter, but no copy was produced. Meanwhile, as a stopgap measure, Berthony applied to include Marie in the group medical plan offered by his own employer, Amphenol Corporation, through United Healthcare. Although United stated that it would not cover Marie until January 1, 1999, the bills from Marie’s hospital care show that United nevertheless paid for her expenses following the November 30 cutoff of the insurance provided by Stull. Stull argued that United’s replacement coverage deprives Berthony of constitutional standing, for all of Marie’s bills were paid. Berthony responded that New Jersey’s collateral source rule does not allow gratuitous payments by third parties to deprive plaintiffs of standing to prosecute an alleged refusal to pay in the first instance. 70 Fed.Appx. at 637-40.