In the 1990 case of Ingersoll-Rand Company v. Perry McClendon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ingersoll-Rand, reversing a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The dispute centered around an employee's claim that his employer had fired him to avoid paying benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan. The court held that ERISA preempted state law claims for wrongful discharge intended to prevent attainment of pension benefits and provided its own civil enforcement remedies which displaced any cause under state law for related claims. This ruling clarified that federal laws regarding employee benefit plans supersede any relevant state laws, ensuring uniformity in how these cases are handled nationwide.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ingersoll-Rand Company v. Perry McClendon, argued that ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) should not pre-empt state law claims for wrongful discharge intended to deprive an employee of benefits. The dissenters believed that Congress did not intend for ERISA to shield employers from liability for their own illegal conduct and it was never meant to protect unscrupulous employers who fire employees just before they are eligible for retirement benefits. They also pointed out that there is a difference between regulating benefit plans, which ERISA does, and providing remedies when an employer wrongfully terminates someone with the specific intent of interfering with receipt of benefits - something they believe falls under state law jurisdiction. Therefore, according to them, McClendon's claim should have been allowed under Texas common law without being preempted by federal legislation.