LUCA DONNO, APPELLANT,
v.
BURGER KING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed summary judgment for Burger King; employee terminated January 3, 1985 was not entitled to management incentive plan benefits that vested only for those employed through May 31, 1985, despite receiving severance payments thereafter.
An employee terminated before the vesting date of a management incentive plan is not entitled to those benefits even if severance payments continue after termination.
[1] Severance payments made after employment termination do not extend the employment relationship for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits that vest only upon co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonno was employed by Burger King Corporation under a letter agreement that terminated his employment on January 3, 1985. The management incentive pla…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vesting Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s final summary judgment entered in favor of Burger King Corporation. Under the unambig uous terms of the letter agreement between Donno and Burger King Corporation, Donno’s employment with the corporation terminated on January 3,1985.
Consequently, the trial court correctly denied Donno’s claim of entitlement to benefits under the management incentive plan, which became vested only for those who remained employed by the corporation through May 31, 1985. See Feola v. Valmont Indus., Inc., 208 Neb. 527, 304 N.W. 2d 377 (1981); Compton v. Shopko Stores, Inc., 93 Wis.2d 613, 287 N.W. 2d 720 (1980); cf. Atkinson v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. of the United States, 519 F. 2d 1112 (5th Cir.1975) (insurance agent, terminated after thirteen and one-half years, not entitled to renewal commissions which became vested only for employees with fifteen years of service); State ex rel. Roberts v. Public Fin. Co., 294 Or. 713, 662 P. 2d 330 (1983) (employee, terminated three days before first anniversary of employment, not entitled to vacation pay where employee eligible for vacation only after first anniversary).
Our decision is unaffected by the fact that Donno received severance payments from the corporation until June 26, 1985. Severance pay is, by definition, payments made to an employee after the employment relationship is severed. Feola, 304 N.W. 2d at 383; Compton, 287 N.W. 2d at 723; Black’s Law Dictionary 1232 (5th ed. 1979).
Accordingly, the trial court’s final summary judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradshaw v. Pantry Pride Enters., Inc., 566 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…nterruption in employment simply continued at his or her former job, albeit with a successor employer.4 “Severance pay is, by definition, payments made to an employee after the employment relationship is severed.” Donno v. Burger [*1308] King Corp., 510 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Although Pantry Pride technically severed its relationship with the plaintiffs, the express terms of the 1976 policy do not allow plaintiffs to receive severance pay.5 Severance pay is like other benefits afforded to employ…
Authorities Cited
- Kenneth W. "Tex" Atkinson v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States, 519 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1975)