Gary Black v. Fu-Gen Inc., Glenn Brown, Marsha Brown
Published: Oct. 18, 2001 | Result Date: Jun. 18, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 98C00207 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Beverly Hills
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
In 1993, the defendant, Fu-Gen Inc., a fraud and special claims investigation services company, was awarded a
25-percent portion of a contract of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority claims
administration and investigation contract jointly with another company, HCM. HCM had originally held the
entire MTA contract.
During the fall of 1993, the defendant hired the plaintiff, a 48-year old manager of Fu-GenÆs Special
Investigation Unit. The plaintiff had previously worked for HCM as an assistant manager of HCMÆs Special
Investigation Unit in administering the MTA contract.
On Jan. 26, 1994, Fu-Gen accepted the plaintiffÆs resignation in lieu of termination for cause after allegations
that the plaintiff made racial slurs and derogatory statements about the competence of defendants Glenn Brown
and Marsha Brown, as well as violating Fu-GenÆs anti-discrimination policies and threatened to crash Fu-
GenÆs computer data base.
On Feb. 8, 1994, upon the advice of labor counsel, Glenn Brown mailed an offer of release and severance to the
plaintiff in the form of a proposed agreement for separation of employment, which provided for $17,100 in
severance benefits with a full release of all claims, as well as specific prohibitions against the plaintiff making
any disparaging or derogatory statements about Fu-Gen or its principals. It was signed by Glenn Brown on
behalf of Fu-Gen.
On Feb. 9, 1994, the plaintiff requested changes to the language of the agreement, including a request that
there be a mutual agreement to refrain from making disparaging remarks about the other party.
On Feb. 11, 1994, the defendant countered, offering a reduced package by $5,100. The plaintiff had been
rehired by HCM to work in the same building as Fu-Gen on another contract.
On Feb. 14, 1994, the plaintiff was present at Fu-Gen. He claimed he was there to return the signed agreement,
which he claims he put in a telephone message slot and to deliver ValentineÆs Day cards to former co-workers.
Fu-Gen was concerned by the plaintiffÆs presence on Fu-GenÆs property due to the alleged prior threats to crash
the computer system and threaten employees to whom he had made racial slurs in the past. That night, Brown
informed the plaintiff that the deal was no longer on the table and that all offers were revoked, which was
confirmed in a letter the following day. After that conversation, the plaintiff mailed the agreement back to Fu-
Gen indicating a Feb. 11, 1994 signature date for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff brought this action based on breach of contract theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $30,100 ($17,100 plus $13,000 interest). The defendants made no offer at the mandatory settlement conference. After the individual defendants were dismissed pursuant to a motion for nonsuit, the defendants offered to waive their rights to pursue malicious prosecution actions against the plaintiff and waive costs in an exchange for a dismissal of all remaining claims against the corporate defendant. The plaintiff rejected this offer.
Other Information
The individual defendants, Glenn Brown and Marsha Brown, were dismissed from this suit on a motion for a nonsuit. During deliberation, the jury submitted a question asking whether a verbal revocation was effective, to which the court responded that an oral revocation was effective provided the offer had not previously been accepted. The verdict was returned approximately 25 minutes later.
Deliberation
four hours
Poll
11-1
Length
two days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390