Merk v. Jewel Food Stores
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
945 F.2d 889 (1991)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
A new employee-ratified, collective-bargaining agreement between Jewel Food Stores (Jewel) (defendant) and its employees’ union guaranteed the employees a minimum wage. However, when discount chain Cub Foods entered Jewel’s Chicago-area market, Jewel slashed wages and took other actions that forced Kelly Merk and many other employees (ex-employees) (plaintiffs) to leave the company. Arguably, Jewel’s cost-cutting response to competition was permissible under a secret side deal struck late in the contract negotiations, when it became clear to both Jewel and the union that stiff competition was on the horizon. The side deal was omitted from the contract’s text. Compulsory binding arbitration eventually forced Jewel to restore wages for its active employees, but the arbitration award did nothing to help Jewel’s ex-employees. The ex-employees sued Jewel. Because it was clear that neither Jewel nor the union regarded the written, ratified contract to be the sole and integrated expression of their agreement, the federal district court admitted parol evidence of the secret side deal into evidence. The trial jury returned its verdict for Jewel, and the ex-employees appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cudahy, J.)
Dissent (Easterbrook, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.