| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v Darden
''Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v Darden'', (503 US 318 ) (1992) is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of protection for employees, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974. It had that principles of agency were relevant to interpreting the concept of "employee".
==Facts==
Robert Darden sold Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company policies from 1962 to 1980 in Fayetteville, North Carolina. His agency contract stated he would be enrolled in the company retirement plan. The contract said, if his job terminated, he would forfeit entitlements if he worked and competed with Nationwide within 25 miles of his business location. In November 1980, Nationwide terminated its contractual relationship. A month later, Darden started selling insurance policies for Nationwide’s competitors. Nationwide said he was disqualified from receiving retirement benefits. Darden sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 29 USC §1132(a). He contended he was protected an ‘employee’ under §3(6), 29 USC §1002(6), and that under 29 USC §1053(a) his benefits had ‘vested’ and could not be forfeited. Nationwide argued Darden was not an employee, but an independent contractor.
District Court held Darden was an independent contractor, not an employee, under common law agency principles. Darden appealed.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v Darden」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|