Fox v. Lummus Company, 524 F. Supp. 27 (1981) p243.

properly worded complaint

This action arises out of a dispute over an employment agreement in which P claims D breached the contract by unjustly withholding salary earned by P and by denying P holiday leave and in other ways "harassing" him. P claims his salary was withheld because of a company policy that was intended to equalize the amount of taxes employees of different nationalities would pay. Each employee's salary was reduced by theoretical taxes. P says that because no taxes were ever levied upon his salary by the government, D's deduction of "theoretical taxes" was improper.

D moved to dismiss the first claim for failure to state a claim, directing P to give more definite statement of the fourth claim (12(e)), striking allegations of pain and suffering from the fourth claim pursuant to 12(f). The defendant's motions were granted.

Does P state a valid claim?

There must be a valid claim stated in the complaint.

No - P's claim is that D did exactly what the contract stated it would do. Where the expressed intention of contracting parties is clear, a contrary intent will not be created by implication.

On second claim: because a contract exists here, the court has a duty to enforce it. There was not quasi contract here saying that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself at the expense of another because here there was a written agreement.

On fourth claim: the claim of "constant harassment" is to vague and ambiguous.

finally: P cannot claim great mental and physical anguish and suffering because NY law only recognizes economic injury for breach of an employment contract .