Labor and Employment

Big Deals

Sally Ross v. Trammell Crow Company
On August 19, 2004, Trammell Crow Company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, prevailed in a whistleblower action filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court. Sally Ross, who was terminated along with 700 other workers in 2001, claimed that her discharge was an outcome of her having complained of alleged unlawful conduct by a senior level executive. The four-day trial concluded with a 10 to 2 verdict in favor of Trammel Crow. In addition, an earlier claim of civil conspiracy brought against both the individual executive and the company was dismissed prior to trial. Thompson Coburn LLP (Thompson Coburn) attorneys Krissa Lubben and former Thompson Coburn associate Amy Clendennen, acting as local counsel, represented the company in conjunction with attorneys with Paul, Hastings, Janofsky, & Walker LLP.

Knapp v. Convergys Corporation
Thompson Coburn represented Convergys Corporation, a national provider of telephone customer service support, in the defense of a sexual harassment case brought by Charlene Knapp, an entry level employee. After discovering that the plaintiff had committed perjury during her deposition and withheld information about her employment as an exotic dancer, we filed a motion for sanctions. The District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s entire complaint with prejudice as a sanction for perjury during her deposition. Plaintiff paid Defendant's attorneys fees. This case was handled by attorneys Mary Bonacorsi and Laura Jordan.

Polk v. Inroads, Inc. and InRoads/St. Louis
Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. of St. Louis City Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Thompson Coburn client Inroads/St. Louis, Inc. and Inroads, Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to identifying and preparing minority talent for positions of leadership in corporate America and in the community at large. Plaintiff Cheryl Polk, former Operations Manager for Inroads/St. Louis, Inc. claimed that beginning in late 1995, Inroads, Inc. and Inroads/St. Louis, Inc. intentionally instituted a pattern of actions against her intending to cause her severe emotional distress.

Polk claimed that Inroads/St. Louis, Inc., through its management, targeted her alone in an audit of vacation and leave rules, confiscated files from her office, followed her while she was at work, including to the bathroom, called Polk at home six times in four hours while she was out of the office on sick leave, misrepresented to Polk's co-workers that she was responsible for the lack of success of the St. Louis office, demoted her, stripped her of many of her duties and responsibilities, and created unreasonable and unattainable work production requirements.

Inroads/St. Louis, Inc. and Inroads, Inc. originally moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Missouri law. In 1996, Judge Dierker dismissed Polk's petition, with prejudice, holding that her allegations did not amount to acts "so outrageous as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community." However, in a 2-1 decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Polk's allegations, as pled, did amount to acts "so outrageous as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Both parties then conducted extensive discovery, after which Inroads/St. Louis, Inc. and Inroads, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts in the case did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Missouri common law. Judge Dierker agreed and granted Inroads/St. Louis, Inc. and Inroads, Inc. summary judgment on Polk's claims. Plaintiff is expected to appeal this decision as well.

Nick Lamb conducted plaintiff's deposition and argued the motion. Lamb, David Yates and Carrie Schierer drafted the summary judgment motion, with assistance from Kelly Brown and Jackie Gelb in discovery.

Robert Bilton v. Monsanto Company
In September 1993, Robert Bilton, a salesperson with Thompson Coburn client Monsanto Corporation, received oral notice from Monsanto that his job was being eliminated and that he would be leaving Monsanto at the end of 1993 unless another job was found for him. Bilton was offered a severance package that provided one year of severance pay and an enhanced pension. To participate in the severance package, Bilton would have to sign a release of any and all claims that he had against Monsanto.

Bilton was dissatisfied with the severance package because it required him to leave Monsanto two months before the vesting date of some stock options that had been issued to him. In early December, he advised Monsanto that he would not sign the severance agreement. Bilton then showed Monsanto an employment agreement that he had signed when he joined Monsanto some 20 years earlier that required he be given 90 days written notice of his termination. Bilton stated that, even if 90 days' written notice were given immediately, he would be able to remain at Monsanto until after the vesting date of the stock options.

The head of the division of Monsanto in which Bilton worked then requested a meeting with Bilton. At the meeting, Monsanto proposed to Bilton that he accept the severance package and enter into a consulting agreement with Monsanto to provide some of the money that he would have received had the stock options vested. An agreement was reached at the meeting. Bilton subsequently signed the severance package, including the release.

However, when the written consulting agreement arrived, Bilton claimed it offered him much less compensation than he had been orally promised at the meeting. He filed suit, claiming that his termination was motivated by age discrimination and that Monsanto had fraudulently induced him to enter into the severance agreement. Bilton also claimed that Monsanto had breached its oral contract with him to provide a lucrative consulting package. Finally, Bilton (who performed some consulting services after his termination) included a quantum meruit claim, asking to be compensated for those services. Despite bringing this suit, Bilton kept all of the severance pay and additional pension benefits provided to him under the severance agreement.

Monsanto moved for summary judgment and the court dismissed all of Bilton's claims. The court found that Bilton's age discrimination claim was untimely because more than 300 days had elapsed after he was orally notified that he would be terminated and before he filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. On Bilton's common law claims (other than quantum meruit), the court found that Bilton's claims were barred by the release that he had signed and that, even if Bilton's signature on the release had been induced by fraud, Bilton had ratified the release by retaining the benefits he had received. Finally, the court held that Bilton should not receive compensation for the consulting services he had provided, because of his deposition testimony that he had done the work as a favor to his former supervisor.

Monsanto was represented in the case by Cliff Godiner and former Thompson Coburn associate Aaron Baker.

Robert Baumbach v. Baldor Electric Company
Robert Baumbach alleged that his termination by Thompson Coburn client Baldor Electric in 1986 was motivated by illegal age discrimination. At the time of his termination, Baumbach had been offered six months' severance pay in exchange for his signature on a release. Baumbach asked permission to show the agreement to his lawyer, but the company representatives at the termination refused to allow him that opportunity. Baumbach then signed the release. He accepted the six months of severance pay and then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Subsequently, he filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. After more than five years of litigation, the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute under a procedure that allowed Baldor Electric to file a motion for summary judgment with the arbitrator.

The arbitrator recently granted summary judgment in favor of Baldor Electric. In her ruling, the arbitrator held that, while the release may not have been binding at the time it was signed, it was ratified by Baumbach's acceptance of the benefits thereunder and his failure to have tendered back those benefits prior to filing suit. The arbitrator also held that Baumbach had insufficient evidence of age discrimination to support his claim.

Baldor was represented in this case by Rick Jaudes, Cliff Godiner and Krissa Lubben.