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.

Employment Law
Breach of Contract
Failure to Pay Wages Due and Owing

Andrew Pashman v. Aetna Insurance Company of Connecticut, Medicity Inc., and Does 1 through 10

Published: Jan. 24, 2015 | Result Date: Jul. 18, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:13-cv-02835-DMR Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark C. Peters


Defendant

Margaret A. Keane

David S. Durham
(DLA Piper LLP)


Facts

Andrew Pashman sued Aetna Insurance co. of Connecticut and Medicity Inc., in connection with an employment dispute.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that he started working for defendant in 2010 as a Regional Vice President of Sales, and was promoted to Enterprise Area Vice President shortly thereafter. In May 2012, he was transferred back to his old position. In Oct., defendants fired him. Plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully terminated for, among others, asking for commission he was entitled to.

Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, failure to pay wages due in violation of the California Labor Code, violation of Labor Code Section 232, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, libel, and slander.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied plaintiff's allegations, and asserted various affirmative defenses. Defendants alleged that plaintiff was fired because of his bad behavior, as evidenced by his past Human Resources violations. Plaintiff also failed to return defendants' property upon termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing it had valid reasons for terminating plaintiff.

Result

The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.


#91048

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

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