Rohr v. Reliance Bank, No. 15-2392 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff requested payment for the one year remaining on his employment contract, but the FDIC advised that the payment was a prohibited “golden parachute,” under 12 U.S.C. 1828(k) and 12 C.F.R. 359.1, which the bank could not make without prior agency approval. Plaintiff, a former executive at Reliance Bank, filed suit against the bank and the FDIC, alleging a breach of contract under Missouri law and sought a declaration that federal law does not prohibit the payment. The district court upheld the FDIC determination and granted summary judgment to the bank. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the agency determination is not worthy of deference because it is inconsistent with FDIC positions taken elsewhere. Rather, the court concluded that Chevron and Auer deference is irrelevant because the agency treats the word "contingent" as unambiguous and relies on its dictionary meaning. The court concluded that one could reasonably characterize the payment obligation as contingent on either plaintiff’s termination or his continued employment. In this case, plaintiff alleged the bank came to owe the payment because of his termination, not because of services he rendered. Therefore, the agency determined the payment was contingent on termination, and the court found this finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court concluded that the bank’s obligation to pay plaintiff was rendered impossible when the FDIC determined the payment was a golden parachute. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Ericksen, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Deposit Insurance Act. FDIC determination that the compensation plaintiff sought following his termination as a bank executive was a prohibited "golden parachute" under 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1828(k) and the implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. Sec. 359.1, is affirmed; as a result, performance of the contract between plaintiff and the bank was impossible, and the district court's order granting the bank's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claims is affirmed. [ June 20, 2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.