Court Opinion

ID: 9443150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:12:21.593721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:23.314679
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Circuit Judge
(concurring.)
In my judgment this case should not have been decided on a motion to dismiss the complaint, and I am therefore agreeable to the remand which will afford an opportunity to defendant to answer and make proof as to the details and application of the retirement plan under which Orloski allegedly was separated from his employment. The retirement plan relied on by defendant was not disclosed by the pleadings, and was, therefore, not before the trial court on the motion to dismiss. However, I think it should be clearly understood that this court has not expressed any opinion as to whether a correct interpretation of Orloski’s employment contract would preclude company action under any form or plan of compulsory retirement.