Steven C. Eskew v. Sears, Roebuck and Company; Joan Denny and Karl Goldstrohm
Published: Jun. 13, 1998 | Result Date: Mar. 31, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 769575 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Raymond G. Schultz
(technical)
Facts
On March 1, 1996, plaintiff Steven Eskew, a 49-year-old commissioned "big ticket" salesperson, was terminated by defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. after 31+ years of employment. During his employment, the plaintiff had signed three application forms containing express "at-will" statements, and Sears' established written personnel policies rate state that employment is "at-will." It was undisputed that plaintiff's sales volume was always at or above the required level of expected performance. Prior to the end of 1995, the plaintiff and several of his co-employees, allegedly with the knowledge and approval of their supervisor, engaged in a course of conduct whereby they intentionally falsified register transactions in order to artificially inflate their percentage of maintenance agreement sales. This scheme also manipulated their commissions at a higher rate, although they claimed not to know about any monetary gain. When Sears learned of the scheme, it investigated, and rather than terminate the involved associates, Sears gave the involved employees a "last chance agreement" in the form of a deficiency interview. In his agreement, the plaintiff acknowledged that he understood how to properly conduct register transactions, and also confirmed his understanding that any more violations could lead to termination. In early 1996, the plaintiff violated company rules while conducting an exchange transaction for a customer. The plaintiff admitted his conduct amounted to a "minor infraction" of the rules, but claimed it was an innocent mistake. Sears believed that plaintiff engaged in willful misconduct, and after an investigation, terminated him on that ground. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and defamation theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $300,000 at the mandatory settlement conference. The defendants made an offer of $11,500.
Damages
The plaintiff's economist opined that plaintiff suffered approximately $300,000 in lost income and benefits.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and five months after the case was filed. A mandatory settlement conference was held on March 10, 1998, before Judge Francisco Firmat of Orange County Superior Court, resulting in no settlement. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: The plaintiff's motion to tax costs was successful in obtaining only a $265 reduction in the judgment, and defendants now have a judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $8,667.07.
Deliberation
one hour
Poll
11-1 (on breach of implied employment contract), 11-1 (on breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing), 11-1 (on defamation); 12-0 (for plaintiff on existence of implied agreement requiring good cause for termination
Length
12 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390