Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Simpson v. Ernst & Young

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
850 F. Supp. 648 (1994)


Facts

Ernst & Young (defendant) named Simpson (plaintiff) a partner for the firm. Simpson contributed $84,000 to the firm via a bank loan that Ernst & Young arranged and on which Ernst & Young paid the interest. Ernst & Young paid Simpson an annual salary, plus an annual allocation as determined by a compensation committee. There was nothing in the partnership agreement that tied that allocation amount to the business’s profits or losses. Simpson did not have the power to vote for new partners or the removal of existing partners. Simpson could vote for amendments to the partnership agreement, firm dissolution, and mergers, but the firm’s advisory council could override the results of any such vote. Simpson did not have an unconditional right to examine the firm’s books and records. Under the terms of his partnership, Simpson was subject to unlimited liability for the firm’s losses. Ernst & Young fired Simpson. Ernst & Young refused to permit Simpson to examine the firm’s books regarding its attorney’s opinion about his firing. Simpson brought suit for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Ernst & Young filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Simpson was a partner and thus not covered by federal statutes protecting the rights of employees.

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 (Steinburg, 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 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.