Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Fox v. Lummus Company

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
525 F. Supp. 27 (1981)


Facts

Ian Fox (plaintiff) was hired by The Lummus Company (Lummus) (defendant) to work on a construction project in Iraq. Paragraph 5 of the employment agreement between Fox and Lummus provided that Lummus would reduce Fox’s salary on a monthly basis in order to equalize the after-tax salaries of employees of different nationalities. The contract provided that Fox’s salary would be reduced by a “theoretical tax” amount; the precise number was set forth in an attachment to the contract. In point of fact, no actual tax was ever levied upon Fox’s salary by any governmental authority. Fox sued Lummus in a federal district court in New York, contending that Lummus owed him the portion of his salary that Lummus had deducted. Claims one, two, and three of Fox’s complaint alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and recovery in quasi-contract. Claim four alleged, among other things, that Lummus had applied “constant harassment and pressure” to Fox with the purpose of encouraging him to resign. Fox’s complaint also alleged that Lummus’s conduct had caused him mental and physical anguish and suffering to the order of $100,000 in injury. Prior to filing its response, Lummus moved (1) to dismiss claims one through three pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), (2) for an order that Fox provide a more definite statement of his fourth claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), and (3) to strike the allegation and request for damages relating to mental suffering, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Motley, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 202,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.