Confidential
Settlement – $0Court
Case Not Filed
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The respondent is a division of a large, multinational, and publicly-traded manufacturing company headquartered
in Michigan. The claimant was formerly a well-respected and esteemed employee working as a Plant Manager
in one of the respondentÆs southern California factories. The claimant was not bound by a written employment
contract, but, after he was hired and had worked for several months, he received and acknowledged receipt of
an employment handbook describing the condition of the claimantÆs employment with the respondent.
The claimant was a salaried employee but was not management. Both sides acknowledge that the claimant was
an at-will employee pursuant to California law and the provisions of the respondentÆs employment handbook.
After several years working for the respondent and receiving multiple raises and promotions, the respondent
decided to close down the factory and relocate it nearer to the respondentÆs headquarters in Michigan. At that
time, several key employees were selected by the respondent to work past the factory closure date and help with
the closure and move to Michigan. One of those specially-selected employees was the claimant. The claimant
worked to close down the Southern California factory and to shift production to the respondentÆs new Michigan
facilities.
After the factory closed, but just prior to the completion of all post-closure work necessary for the respondent to
start manufacturing in the new Michigan facilities, the claimant was immediately terminated, without notice.
A dispute arose thereafter between the claimant and the respondent concerning the
firing, as to what promises had been made to the claimant by the President of the respondent
company, in exchange for the claimant continuing to work after the factory closure date, and
whether any such promises were kept by the respondent. The claimant received a "right-to-sue"
letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing dated June 27, 2001.
Settlement Discussions
The claimant initially demanded a monetary amount equal to 250 percent of one yearÆs salary. The respondent countered with an offer of three months salary. Ultimately, the parties engaged in a mandatory pre-lawsuit mediation and reached a settlement to pay the claimant an amount equal to six months salary.
Damages
The claimant alleged he was entitled to "back pay" at the claimantÆs regular monthly salary from the date of termination to the date of resolution; and reasonable "front pay" for the claimantÆs lost wages for several years.
Other Information
Upon firing, the respondent offered the claimant severance pay of two weeks. A demand letter was initially sent by the claimant to the respondent on Jan. 12, 2001 and the matter resolved in mediation before Jeffrey A. Krivis of ADR Services Inc. 10 months later, prior to a lawsuit being filed or any administrative action instigated.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390