Maczko v. Ford Motor Co. case to respond to this question. In 2000, Ford motor company spun off a subsidiary named Visteon, as well as several employees that went to work with Visteon. Visteon transferred some facilities, as well as these same employees, back to Ford in 2006. The employees were classified as re-hired rather than reinstated. When these employees were later provided with severance pay pursuant to a reduction in force in 2008, did Ford violate ERISA by classifying the employees as rehired rather than reinstated? In responding to this question, make sure to provide an argument in favor of a finding for Ford, an argument in favor of a finding for the employees, what the court ultimately decided, and whether or not you agree with the court's decision (and why, or why not).
First and foremost, this case is still pending and no official ruling has been made on the case aside from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION denying Ford's motion to dismiss the case because of their allegations that it was identical to Nycholas and should be similarly nixed. Nycholas was a separate case against Ford that was based upon pension benefits and the Nycholas case was dismissed at the summary judgment stage instead of being dismissed on a motion to dismiss. The other difference between Nycholas and Maczko is that plaintiffs in Nycholas had ...
This solution of 400 words discusses the current progress of the Maczko v. Ford Motor Co. case ruling and looks at the difference between the Nycholas and Maczko. A personal account on the whole situation is provided and explained.