This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Merrill (D) employed Post and Maney (Ps) as account executives around 1960. They elected to participate in the profit sharing and pension plan rather than take straight commissions. Both Ps were terminated in August of 1974, and both began working for Bache who competed with D. After their termination, they wanted to check on the status of their pensions and were informed by D that they have forfeited all rights because they went to work for a competing firm. The pension plan had a provision that called for forfeiture in the event that the ex-employee competed directly or indirectly. P sued D for conversion and breach of contract. They claimed that they were discharged without cause. D’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed; Ps had the right of preserving their pension rights by refraining from competing with their former employer.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.