Cynthia Besson v. Art Impressions Inc.
Published: Aug. 30, 2001 | Result Date: Jun. 12, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 72Y1600024600 Arbitration – $0
Court
American Arbitration Association
Attorneys
Claimant
Genie E. Harrison
(Genie Harrison Law Firm)
Respondent
Arthur F. Silbergeld
(Thompson Coburn LLP)
Facts
According to the plaintiff: The plaintiff moved from out-of-state to accept the defendantÆs offer of employment.
When hired in 1996, the parties executed an agreement setting the terms and conditions of the plaintiffÆs
employment (including her right to commissions) and restricting the partiesÆ rights to change those terms and
conditions except upon agreement in writing signed by both parties. The 1996 contract did not contain any
clause forfeiting the plaintiffÆs rights to commissions upon the termination of her employment. In or about
November 1998, the plaintiff began negotiating to represent an artist whose publishing deals were projected to
provide the defendant with $40 million in gross revenue over a six-year period. That artist was signed to a
licensing agreement in January 1999. In March 1999, the defendant unilaterally attempted to change the terms
and conditions of the plaintiffÆs employment by conditioning the plaintiffÆs right to continued employment on
the signing of a new agreement. Among other sweeping changes to the terms of her employment, this new
agreement contained a post-termination commission forfeiture provision and a restriction on the plaintiffÆs
right to discuss the terms and conditions of her employment. The plaintiff refused to sign the new agreement
and the defendant fired her.
According to the defendant: In April 1996, the plaintiff was hired by the defendant as a Vice President of Sales
by a written agreement whereby the plaintiff was paid a base salary plus a commission on sales she generated.
In August 1998, the plaintiff asked to be paid on a percentage of virtually all gross monthly revenues
regardless of who was responsible for generating them. The defendant agreed, and, in late 1998, the defendant
reformulated the compensation for several senior employees, including the plaintiff, by changing the
percentage of revenue paid to the plaintiff from gross to net and adding a profit-based bonus. The defendant
provided plaintiff with the revised employment contract and she refused to sign it, resulting in her termination.
Specials in Evidence
ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFF: The plaintiff moved from out-of-state to accept the defendant's offer of employment. When hired, in 1996, the parties executed an agreement setting the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's employment (including her right to commissions) and restricting
Other Information
The defendant sought to have the award of fees entered against both the plaintiff and her counsel but the arbitrator awarded them against the plaintiff alone.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390