This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

CONFIDENTIAL

Apr. 20, 1996

Employment Law
Wrongful Termination

Confidential

Settlement –  $648,411

Judge

Ronald L. Castleberry

Court

Snohomish Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Paul N. Luvera

Ralph J. Brindley


Defendant

Russ Williams

Clem Barnes


Facts

In 1986, the defendant ("A"), sold his corporation and formed several corporations to manage his assets. One of the corporations was the defendant, marine company ("MC"). MC leases and operates aircraft owned by another of defendant A's companies. The plaintiff, a 45-year-old pilot, had worked for defendant A's corporation as a pilot and defendant A wanted him to become MC's pilot as well as supervisor on various planned projects. The plaintiff was working for a commercial airline at the time that MC offered him a $35,000 per year increase in salary and a 24-year written employment contract ("contract") with bonus provisions. The offer was allegedly made to induce the plaintiff to leave his job and work for the defendants. In July of 1987, Defendant A and plaintiff signed the contract (the same period until mandatory retirement at his prior job). During the seven years he worked for the defendants, he was the chief pilot in charge of maintenance and flying. His duties included flying all over the world. The plaintiff also received annual bonuses for "good performance." The plaintiff received the full bonus provided for in his contract each year. He was allegedly told he was doing a good job and never received any warnings, reprimands or indications that there were problems regarding his flying or work. The contract provided that if he was fired for cause, no salary was due him but, if he was not fired for cause, he would receive to up to 55% of his salary for the remainder of the contract depending on the salary he earned at a new job. Termination for cause was limited to "termination based on failure of employee to use his best efforts to perform his duties hereunder or misconduct of employee by theft, misappropriation of funds or conviction of a felony." The defendant A returned from a vacation in the Mediterranean on September 21, 1994, when the plaintiff flew them in the corporate jet. Two days after their return, defendant A came into plaintiff's office, fired him without any warning and said he was being fired for personal use of the airplanes and not giving his "best efforts" under the contract. The defendant A also alleged the plaintiff was fired for cause for unsafe flying and FAA violations. The amount of discretion given to the plaintiff to fly the airplanes when defendant A was gone was disputed. The plaintiff had flown the jet to Pasco, Wash. two years before to return his daughter to school. The defendant A claimed this was a cause for firing him. The plaintiff maintained that it was within his job authority to fly the jet for training or other purposes. The defendant A hired a new pilot on a verbal understanding for $100,000 less a year than the plaintiff was paid which would amount to a savings of $1,700,000 in salary and bonus owed to the plaintiff over the contract time. The sued for the salary allowed under the contract over the remaining seventeen years left on the contract term. During the course of litigation, the defendants hired an expert on FAA regulations to review and analyze the plaintiff's flying practices and prepare a report. The expert's conclusions were submitted to the FAA, allegedly at the urging of present and former FAA officials, who allegedly indicated to Edson that he had a moral obligation to submit the report. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, based on breach of contract, wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The settlement discussions were not disclosed.

Damages

Per the plaintiff, the plaintiff claimed $648,411 in loss of pay as a result of the defendants' conduct if he maintained his prior job and $1,100,000 if he was unable to retain his prior job. Per the defendants, the plaintiff claimed $1,132,469 in loss of pay as a result of the defendants' breach of the employment agreement.

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged that he sustained emotional distress as a result of the defendants' conduct.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and one month after the case was filed. Plaintiff's economist, Lowell Bassett, testified that under the employment agreement, if the plaintiff was fired without cause and would not lose his prior job due to the defendants' submission of their expert's report to the FAA, the plaintiff would be entitled to $648,411 in back and future pay and if he was fired without cause and he were to lose his prior job because of the defendants' submission of the report to the FAA, then he would be entitled to $1,100,000 (per the plaintiff) and $1,132,469 (per the defendants) in back and future pay. The parties stipulated to these figures in jury instructions. The jury was instructed that in order for the plaintiff to prevail on his claim that the defendants' submission of the expert's report to the FAA caused him emotional distress, he had to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the information submitted was false or defendants acted in reckless disregard of the truth in submitting the false information to the FAA. At the time of trial, the FAA had not made a decision and information could not be obtained about the likelihood of the action because of federal confidentiality statutes. The jury awarded no damages under this claim as it determined that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim for emotional distress. The plaintiff was eventually rehired by his prior employer but he had to start out as a new pilot and serve a probationary term. His loss of pay was over $170,000 as a result. Over plaintiff's objections, the court allowed the jury to have the multi-paged defense expert's report which had been sent to the FAA. The court also instructed the jury that information not known to defendant A when he fired the plaintiff but discovered afterwards could be relied upon as cause for firing him.

Deliberation

5 hours

Poll

10-2 (breach of contract for plaintiff); 12-0 (no emotional distress for defendants)

Length

12 days


#109362

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390