Anstett v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 501 (7^th Cir. 2000)-This court, reversing the district court, held that a severance plan entitled the employees of Eagle-Picher’s Plastics Division to severance benefits.  Eagle-Picher sold its Plastics Division to Cambridge Industries, Inc.  The Plastic’s Division’s employees had no interruption in employment.  Cambridge rehired almost all of them immediately following the sale.  The severance policy applied to "salaried employees terminated other than for cause or voluntary separation, due to the exigencies of the business situation."

The affected employees sued Eagle-Picher, seeking approximately $ 1 million in separation benefits.  Eagle-Picher contended that it intended its severance plan to cover employees who suffered a loss of income.  It did not intend its severance plan to cover a corporate asset sale in which the purchaser immediately re-hired its employees.

            In reversing the district court, this court looked to the unambiguous plan language and found that the plan required termination to trigger eligibility for separation benefits.  Although Cambridge immediately re-employed the plaintiffs after the sale, Eagle-Picher had terminated them.  Indeed, Eagle-Picher treated the plaintiffs as terminated for every purpose other than the determination of eligibility for separation benefits.

            This court explained:  "A ruling favoring the plaintiffs is not a windfall when it simply  holds the employer to its bargain.  A strict reading of the plan protects the plaintiffs from an uncertain and possibly precarious employment future with a new company…."