Court Opinion

ID: 9488684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:52:46.886733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:02.562743
License: Public Domain

MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
While the majority has some basis for adopting the reasoning that the term “employee” as used in the statute does not in any case extend to a one-time, former or ex-employee, it is insufficient. In his dissent, Judge Hall convincingly points out the more compelling reasons for reaching the opposite conclusion, regardless of whether the term “employee” in one sense, and in certain circumstances not present here, has a plain meaning or is truly ambiguous. After all, despite the long lapse of time, Joe DiMaggio can still be referred to as a center fielder for the New York Yankees.
Chief Judge ERVIN joins in this dissent.