Leo VARTANIAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Et Al., Defendants—Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that mere “corporate ruminations” about offering an enhanced severance package to certain employees did not trigger a contemporaneous duty to disclose
• applying Fischer II, but making explicit the requirement that the specific proposal at issue under consideration would \affect a person in the position of the plaintiff\
• modifying the first prong of the serious consideration test to require \a specific proposal which would affect a person in the position of the plaintiff \ (emphasis added)
• “Indeed, it is not implausible that imposing a threshold lower than that of Fischer II would frustrate the very purposes for which a severance program typically is designed: to reduce a workforce by voluntary means”
• distinguishing preliminary cost estimates from specific proposals

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).