Award for Employer in Race Discrimination/Retaliation Case

The Claimant worked for Respondent from approximately June 1996 through April 6, 2001. When Claimant was hired he signed an application that stipulated that all claims, including civil rights claims, must be brought within 180 days of the event that have given rise to the claim or be forever barred. He also signed documents acknowledging receipt of employee policies and acknowledging that the Respondent Mandatory Problem Solving Process (“PSP”) was the exclusive remedy for resolution of any disputes regarding his employment relationship. The PSP is a procedure used by the Respondent to identify employee complaints, including discrimination charges, and to rectify the problem where appropriate. The PSP process requires that all claims, including civil rights claims, that are not resolved through internal discussions must be submitted to binding arbitration.

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Employer Wins on Age Discrimination But Loses on Just Cause Contract

The Arbitrator finds that the Claimant has failed to carry his burden with respect to his claim of age discrimination. Specifically, the Arbitrator believes that Respondent’s principals fired Claimant because they truly believed that Claimant was guilty of professional negligence.

The Arbitrator finds that Respondent failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to the alleged acts of professional negligence which Respondent claims constitutes just cause for termination. The proofs submitted by Respondent were not of sufficient quantity or credibility to merit a finding of just cause.

The restrictive covenant contained in the purchase and employment agreements remain in full force and effect.

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Award for Employer on Public Policy Claim

Claimant contests her “double demotion” from foster care manager supervisor in December 1996. She claims that the employment action was unfair, deceptive and retaliatory. She concedes, however, that she was an at-will employee.

The employer asserts that Claimant was demoted for legitimate business reasons – poor performance and possible endangerment of the children which the employer services.

The Arbitrator credits almost all of the testimony by the parities, particularly by the agents and employees of the employer. For the reasons set forth below, there are no disputed issues of material fact and therefore this Arbitrator is compelled to find that the Claimant is entitled to no relief.

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Award for Employer/Non-Competition Agreement

Respondent was an at-will employee under the above agreement. Claimant terminated him on March 7, 1999.

The Claimant filed for arbitration alleging that the Respondent violated his employment agreement by stealing proprietary information and competing with Claimant in the employee placement business. Additionally, Claimant seeks damages for excess wear and tear on a vehicle which it leased to Respondent and reimbursement for commission fall-off expenses incurred when a candidate placed by Respondent failed to meet the probationary period for one of Claimant’s clients. The fall off expenses were essentially overhead costs associated with finding a replacement for the candidate rejected by Claimant’s client.

Respondent seeks damages against Claimant for failure to contribute to his employee welfare benefit plan and for a commission override which he allegedly earned during the course of his employment.

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Award for Employee for Breach of Employee Separation Agreement

Claimant began employment with Respondent on January 2, 1990. His last position with
Respondent was Director of Branch Operations.

It is undisputed that Claimant was a good employee and had no discipline or performance problems documented in his employment record.

Claimant reported directly to [Elliott DiMauro]. As time went on in Claimant’s tenure with Respondent, he became increasingly disenchanted with the owner of Respondent, [Jack Gallo]. By early 1997 Claimant, had decided to resign from Respondent. He informed his supervisor Mr. [Elliott DiMauro] of his decision.

It is unclear who initiated the discussion, but Mr. [Elliott DiMauro] and Claimant discussed severance pay for Claimant. However, it is undisputed that the discussion was after Claimant announced his plans to resign. Claimant suggested six months of guaranteed severance pay and an additional six months if he was unable to locate another position. He also requested a mutual release.

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Award for Employer on Public Policy Claim

The main issue in this public policy claim is whether Claimant was fired for refusing to violate the antitrust laws because his wife refused to enter into an agreement with Respondent (“Respondent”) not to compete with Respondent. It is undisputed that Claimant had no ability to require his wife to enter into such agreement.

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Award for Physician and Physician's Assistant in Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Dr. Claimant One, has been a physician since 1979. Most of his career has been spent as a physician in West Michigan. Dr. Claimant One’s annual income from his medical practice before he sold that practice to Respondents was between $150,000 and $180,000 per year. His gross billing for the year 1992 was $300,000.

Typically, in Dr. Claimant One’s experience Medicare and Medicaid and private insurers disallow 18% of any given bill. Dr. Claimant One typically collected 98% of the bills after the disallowance. Thus, in any given year Dr. Claimant One could anticipate collecting 80% of his gross billing. The finding regarding the collection rate is derived from the testimony of [Abby Lockhart], Dr. Claimant One and Respondents’ office manger, [Kerry Weaver].

Dr. Claimant One sold his practice to Respondent in October 1993. Drs. [John Corday], [Elizabeth Corday] ([John]’s wife) and [Robert Romano] ([Elizabeth]’s brother) are Respondent’s shareholders. Respondent then engaged Dr. Claimant One as an independent contractor. His compensation was 45% of his collected billings.

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Award for Employee/No Just Cause

Respondent is a Michigan corporation, its business is refurbishing used machinery which is used in the food processing industry.

Respondent is a closely held corporation. The shareholders are members of the [Allen] family of [State]. The [Allen] family, headed by [Adam Allen Sr.], also owns Respondent company, a [State} corporation in [City], [State}, hereafter “Respondent of [State].”

[Adam Allen Sr.] and [Adam Allen Jr.] are primarily responsible for managing Respondent of [State]. At the time Claimant was hired, [Bob Allen], [Adam Allen Sr.’s] son and [Adam Allen Jr.’s] brother, was primarily responsible for managing Respondent in Michigan. [Bob Allen] no longer works with either of the Respondent corporations and is employed somewhere in [City].

Click Here to Read More (Requires Acrobat Reader)