Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

reverse discrimination corp. greed both or neither.. you decide

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Case is going to trial Monday. Need your input folks.. (sorry for crossposts) this one is pretty interesting.. I would love your thoughts on reverse
    Message 1 of 2 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Case is going to trial Monday. Need your input folks.. (sorry for crossposts)
      this one is pretty interesting.. I would love your thoughts on reverse
      discrimination as well.
      Thanks
      Amy

      > Plaintiff, a 26-year employee of Defendant defense contractor, alleges he
      > was removed from the Management Incentive Compensation Plan (MICP) in June
      > 2001 because of his age (53), race (white), and gender (male); and that
      > after complaining his removal was a result of discrimination, he has been
      > subjected to an ongoing pattern of retaliation, including being passed over
      > for open Director-level positions and ultimately being demoted to a
      > Manager-level position, all in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
      >
      > Prior to his removal from MICP, Plaintiff had an exemplary performance
      > record.

      1. He had always received outstanding and excellent performance evaluations
      > 2 He had delivered on many difficult projects.
      3. He served in various Director-level positions for approximately 10 years
      and since
      > 1992, received incentive compensation, which is awarded to "key" managers
      > (including approximately one-half of the Directors) who contribute
      > significantly to the company's objectives.
      >
      > In June 1998, Plaintiff was hand-picked by the President of the Company to
      > run a new program called Enterprise Profit and Process Centers ("EPC"),
      > designed to increase profits reducing cycle time and costs.


      Plaintiff's EPC was funded by an initial 3-year contract with the
      government, and
      > successfully completed in February 2001, resulting in a $275M savings to the
      > company. The contract has continued; however, in a different format.
      >
      > Starting in the fall of 2000, Plaintiff also began leading the company's
      > proposal effort to obtain a major overseas missile contract.
      >
      > In June 2001, Plaintiff learned he had not been approved for MICP for 2001,
      > ostensibly because his job had been eliminated. However, Plaintiff
      > remained in his EPC position throughout 2001 and most of 2002, and
      > continues to perform his EPC duties to this day. Other reasons given
      > Plaintiff for his removal from MICP are also false. For example, he was
      > told that his missile proposal position is not MICP-eligible and that prior
      > individuals in that position did not receive MICP. However, the prior
      > proposal leader received MICP when he split his time between that position
      > and another Program Director position, as Plaintiff was doing in 2001.
      >
      > The real reason Plaintiff was removed from MICP was to make room for
      > minorities and females and younger employees. The local President admitted
      > to Plaintiff he was "caught in a squeeze" and had to put younger people on
      > MICP so that the company would not become stagnant.
      >
      > Defendant has gone overboard with its "commitment to diversity". It has a
      > Diversity Council, lead by the President, to develop and implement
      > diversity goals and objectives, against which the company measures its
      > accomplishments. In 2001, for example, 55% of new hires were minorities
      > and females; 54% of participants in the executive mentoring program were
      > females and minorities; and there was a 28% increase in female
      > representation in Executive Management and an 11% increase in the minority
      > Executive Management population. In addition, the company has given
      > preferential treatment to younger employees in promotional and compensation
      > decisions in an effort to reward and retain younger "talent".
      >
      > Specific to the decision to remove Plaintiff from MICP, the company touts a
      > 400% increase in female and minority representation in MICP in 2001, and
      > Plaintiff was removed so his slot could be given to an African American
      > male, age 48.
      >
      > Plaintiff's Vice President was allocated 6 MICP slots for 2001. When the
      > VP submitted his list of 6 candidates, he included Plaintiff. However,
      > over his VP's objection, the VP Human Resources deleted Plaintiff from the
      > list and substituted, instead, the younger African American male who had
      > recently transferred into Plaintiff's VP's organization. The African
      > American male had been in an EPC role, just like Plaintiff, through which
      > he received MICP, just like Plaintiff. Unlike Plaintiff, however, when
      > this individual's EPC came to an end, the company assigned him to this new
      > position- bypassing the normal committee selection process- and creating
      > for him a development opportunity, although his background did not qualify
      > him for the position.
      >
      > Other younger EPC leaders were also given preferential treatment that older
      > EPC leaders (including Plaintiff) were not given. During 2000-early 2001,
      > four of the eight EPC's stopped operating as EPC's.


      In addition to the African American EPC leader already discussed, a female
      EPC
      > leader (age 41), was placed in a temporary position when her EPC disbanded
      > until a promotional opportunity could be provided her late in 2001. Even
      > though she was no longer in her EPC role, she still received MICP in 2001,
      > and company documents reflect it was based on her EPC position. And in
      > Plaintiffs own organization, another one of the six candidates proposed by
      > his VP was a 45 year old White male who transferred to a Program Director
      > position when his EPC ended, thereby enabling him to retain his MICP.
      > However, the remaining EPC to disband was led by a 60-year old White male,
      > who, instead of being placed in another position with continued MICP like
      > the younger White male and female and the younger African American male,
      > was laid off.
      >
      > Needless to say, confronted with this set of facts, Plaintiff complained
      > about his removal from MICP- locally to the Vice President of Human
      > Resources and to the President, and, when it appeared to him that he would
      > not achieve a satisfactory result locally, to the CEO of LMC at corporate
      > headquarters. After he complained to corporate, he was threatened with
      > retaliation by his VP, his HR Director, his former VP, and the local
      > President. Their threats were not empty.
      >
      > As a direct result of Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff has been passed
      > over for job after job. Ostensibly, despite his exemplary performance
      > history, he is no longer qualified to perform in a Program Director
      > position in Production Operations, because of perceived problems with his
      > "interpersonal skills". Time and time again, those jobs have gone to
      > younger men who are less experienced and less qualified, some of whom used
      > to report to Plaintiff. His old job, for which he received outstanding
      > performance ratings, was even given to someone else.
      >
      > The company has not only retaliated against Plaintiff by failing to award
      > him a Director-level MICP-eligible position, he was recently demoted to a
      > Manager-level position, because the company purportedly could no longer
      > carry him in his Director-level position. That is in spite of the fact
      > that the dollar value of the contracts Plaintiff generated in that position
      > continue to cover his Director's salary many times over, and he has saved
      > the company millions of dollars in that position.
      >
      > As a result of Defendant's age, race, and gender discrimination against
      > Plaintiff, he has lost approximately $1M in MICP and retirement
      > differential, assuming he retires at age 62. However, according to the
      > local President, HR wanted to terminate Plaintiff in the fall of 2002, but
      > the President refused to allow that to happen "while this lawsuit was going
      > on". It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Plaintiff
      > will be terminated when this case is over, which would result in another
      > $1M in lost wages for him. Plaintiff's make whole relief thus constitutes
      > approximately $2 M. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory
      > damages for pain and suffering in an unlimited amount, and to punitive
      > damages of $100,000.
      >

      The missle company's defense:


      Defendant, a government defense contractor, alleges Plaintiff was removed
      from the MICP in 2001 because his job had been so reduced in scope that he
      was no longer a "key employee" expected to make substantial contributions to
      company objectives during Plan Year 2001.

      Six individuals within Plaintiff's VP's organization received MICP in 2001: 
      Four of the six are older than Plaintiff (age 53), and neither younger man is
      "substantially younger" (one man was 48, one 45).  Moreover, only one of the
      six, a Program Director five years older than Plaintiff, was added to MICP in
      2001.  Another individual, an African American male five years younger,
      received MICP in 2000 through another VP, but had recently transferred to
      Plaintiff's VP's organization.

      The African American would have received MICP in 2001, however, regardless of
      his race or his age.  Generally speaking, individuals who receive MICP and
      transfer to other positions within the company- even if those positions had
      not previously been identified as MICP positions- are continued on MICP, in
      order to encourage key employees to take on other critical job assignments. 
      Moreover, Plaintiff's VP testified that, between the two, the African
      American male was the more deserving, because of the significance of his role
      on the VP's largest program.

      Plaintiff's VP had initially recommended Plaintiff for MICP, but knowing that
      Plaintiff's EPC contract was winding down, that Plaintiff was only working ½
      time on it, and that the VP had been out looking for another position for
      Plaintiff, the VP HR confronted Plaintiff's VP when he received the
      recommendation.  Plaintiff's VP explained that he had recommended Plaintiff
      because he was hopeful the missile contract would come through and Plaintiff
      could become its Program Director, thereby justifying his continuation on
      MICP. 

      Coincidentally, the VP to whom Plaintiff reported on the missile proposal,
      who could have - but did not- recommend Plaintiff for MICP in that role-
      added to MICP in 2001 a Program Director who was 9 years older than
      Plaintiff.

      Plaintiff's insistence that the decision to remove him from MICP was somehow
      a result of his age or race or gender is simply incorrect.  It is true that
      Defendant has a Diversity Council and diversity goals and objectives,
      although neither the Council or  specific diversity objectives were in place
      prior to the decision to remove Plaintiff from MICP.  It is likewise true
      that, as a government contractor, Defendant is subject to affirmative action
      requirements.  In addition, Defendant is certainly attempting to respond to
      demographic studies that indicate the workforce of the future will be more
      diverse than it has been, and the success of future recruitment efforts will
      depend, in part, on the proven success of women and minorities in today's
      work environment.  In addition, Defendant's workforce is aging, and thus
      various efforts have been made to retain older workers beyond their normal
      retirement eligibility and to recruit and train younger workers to fill the
      anticipated leadership void. 

      However, none of these factors resulted in Plaintiff's removal from MICP. 
      The average age of MICP participants in both 2000 (Plaintiff's last year on
      MICP) and 2001 (the year he was removed) was 54 years of age (older than
      Plaintiff).  Only 4% of MICP participants were minorities, while 96% were
      white; and only 7.5% were female, while 92.5% were male.  The simple fact is
      the scope of Plaintiff's EPC job was reduced to such an extent- he was only
      working ½ time on it!- that he no longer qualified for MICP.

      Plaintiff's belief that he has been unable to locate another Director-level
      MICP-eligible position because of his age (none of the subject jobs have gone
      to minorities or women, so there is no race or gender discrimination issue)
      and retaliation for having filed a discrimination complaint is ludicrous. 
      Because he knew Plaintiff's EPC contract was coming to an end, Plaintiff's VP
      started talking to other VP's about positions that might become available
      which Plaintiff could fill.  In the spring of 2001, before Plaintiff was
      removed from MICP, he was recommended (along with two others) for a such a
      position, but was not offered the position because based on comments
      Plaintiff made during the interview, the VP who interviewed him believed him
      not to be a team player.

      However, when Plaintiff later complained to the VP HR about his removal from
      MICP, he told the VP HR he had been offered the position and would have taken
      it had he known he would be coming off MICP.  Because the President and the
      VP HR thought it would be unfair to remove Plaintiff from MICP if he had
      turned down a MICP-eligible position in reliance upon continued MICP in his
      current position, Plaintiff's removal was placed on "hold" until his claim
      could be investigated.  The investigation revealed, however, that Plaintiff
      had misrepresented the VP/ interviewer's intentions. 

      Worse, in spite of the VP HR's representation to Plaintiff that he would
      investigate his claim, without prior notice and even though he promised to
      give him a chance to review the matter, Plaintiff went around the VP HR and
      the President to the CEO at corporate.  Yet Plaintiff cannot understand how
      that might not sit well with his bosses. 

      In spite of their chagrin, however, the VP HR has continued to make sure
      Plaintiff's name is presented to selection committees considering candidates
      for available Director-level positions in Production Operations.  However,
      the committees have selected other (sometimes younger- although the candidate
      selected for Plaintiff's prior job is older than Plaintiff) candidates with
      superior team building skills and performance records similar to Plaintiff's,
      for at least three positions.  As a result, one and one half years later,
      there was insufficient Director-level EPC work to justify continuing
      Plaintiff in that position and the missile contract still had not been won. 
      Even so, the President still refused to allow Plaintiff to be laid off, but,
      rather, directed that a Manager-level position be created for him, believing
      he still could make a contribution to the company.

      If, however, a jury believes that Plaintiff was discriminated against, his
      damages are limited to $46,000: $40,000 as the maximum amount of MICP he
      could have been awarded in 2001 (there being no way, by 2002 -a year past the
      final milestone review on the EPC contract and the missile contract no closer
      to being won- that he would have received MICP) and $6,000 as the present
      value of his front pay/retirement differential resulting from that MICP
      loss.  And by October 2002, when there was insufficient Director-level work
      to justify retaining him in that Director position, he was demoted to a
      Manager-level position, which would never be MICP-eligible.  There was
      insufficient Director-level work to justify retaining him in that Director
      position.

      what's your verdict?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Pegasus3
      Based on what I know from the post I would say the following: 1. The defendant is likely to be guilty of discrimination but not age. In my mind this falls
      Message 2 of 2 , May 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Based on what I know from the post I would say the following:
        1. The defendant is likely to be guilty of discrimination but not age.
        In my mind this falls under the whistle blower agenda. In other words he
        had the cojones to complain.

        Edwin C. Hodges

        Edwin C. Hodges
        Private Investigator
        Arlington, Texas 76016
        Voice: 817-516-0155
        eFax: 775-261-7088
        Pegasus3@...

        'Semper Occultus'
        =====================================
        DISCLAIMER NOTE: The information in this electronic mail (e-mail) message
        may be confidential. This information may be protected by privilege, work
        product immunity, or other applicable law. If you are not the intended
        recipient, the retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
        e-mail without permission of the author, is strictly prohibited. Since
        e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication
        cannot be guaranteed. This message may be opinion of the sender only.

        =================================================

        NOTICE

        This e-mail communication is not intended to be interpreted as legal or
        financial advice. Do not act or rely upon the information in this
        communication without seeking the advice of a local attorney or financial
        advisor.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Jurydoctor@... [mailto:Jurydoctor@...]
        Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:22 AM
        To: forensic-debate@yahoogroups.com; thegreatestdebates@yahoogroups.com;
        Psy-CJ-Law@yahoogroups.com; opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com;
        IntellectualPursuits@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: courttv2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [infoguys-list] reverse discrimination corp. greed both or
        neither.. you decide


        Case is going to trial Monday. Need your input folks.. (sorry for
        crossposts)
        this one is pretty interesting.. I would love your thoughts on reverse
        discrimination as well.
        Thanks
        Amy

        > Plaintiff, a 26-year employee of Defendant defense contractor, alleges
        he
        > was removed from the Management Incentive Compensation Plan (MICP) in
        June
        > 2001 because of his age (53), race (white), and gender (male); and that
        > after complaining his removal was a result of discrimination, he has
        been
        > subjected to an ongoing pattern of retaliation, including being passed
        over
        > for open Director-level positions and ultimately being demoted to a
        > Manager-level position, all in violation of the Florida Civil Rights
        Act.
        >
        > Prior to his removal from MICP, Plaintiff had an exemplary performance
        > record.

        1. He had always received outstanding and excellent performance
        evaluations
        > 2 He had delivered on many difficult projects.
        3. He served in various Director-level positions for approximately 10
        years
        and since
        > 1992, received incentive compensation, which is awarded to "key"
        managers
        > (including approximately one-half of the Directors) who contribute
        > significantly to the company's objectives.
        >
        > In June 1998, Plaintiff was hand-picked by the President of the Company
        to
        > run a new program called Enterprise Profit and Process Centers ("EPC"),
        > designed to increase profits reducing cycle time and costs.


        Plaintiff's EPC was funded by an initial 3-year contract with the
        government, and
        > successfully completed in February 2001, resulting in a $275M savings to
        the
        > company. The contract has continued; however, in a different format.
        >
        > Starting in the fall of 2000, Plaintiff also began leading the company's
        > proposal effort to obtain a major overseas missile contract.
        >
        > In June 2001, Plaintiff learned he had not been approved for MICP for
        2001,
        > ostensibly because his job had been eliminated. However, Plaintiff
        > remained in his EPC position throughout 2001 and most of 2002, and
        > continues to perform his EPC duties to this day. Other reasons given
        > Plaintiff for his removal from MICP are also false. For example, he was
        > told that his missile proposal position is not MICP-eligible and that
        prior
        > individuals in that position did not receive MICP. However, the prior
        > proposal leader received MICP when he split his time between that
        position
        > and another Program Director position, as Plaintiff was doing in 2001.
        >
        > The real reason Plaintiff was removed from MICP was to make room for
        > minorities and females and younger employees. The local President
        admitted
        > to Plaintiff he was "caught in a squeeze" and had to put younger people
        on
        > MICP so that the company would not become stagnant.
        >
        > Defendant has gone overboard with its "commitment to diversity". It has
        a
        > Diversity Council, lead by the President, to develop and implement
        > diversity goals and objectives, against which the company measures its
        > accomplishments. In 2001, for example, 55% of new hires were minorities
        > and females; 54% of participants in the executive mentoring program were
        > females and minorities; and there was a 28% increase in female
        > representation in Executive Management and an 11% increase in the
        minority
        > Executive Management population. In addition, the company has given
        > preferential treatment to younger employees in promotional and
        compensation
        > decisions in an effort to reward and retain younger "talent".
        >
        > Specific to the decision to remove Plaintiff from MICP, the company
        touts a
        > 400% increase in female and minority representation in MICP in 2001, and
        > Plaintiff was removed so his slot could be given to an African American
        > male, age 48.
        >
        > Plaintiff's Vice President was allocated 6 MICP slots for 2001. When
        the
        > VP submitted his list of 6 candidates, he included Plaintiff. However,
        > over his VP's objection, the VP Human Resources deleted Plaintiff from
        the
        > list and substituted, instead, the younger African American male who had
        > recently transferred into Plaintiff's VP's organization. The African
        > American male had been in an EPC role, just like Plaintiff, through
        which
        > he received MICP, just like Plaintiff. Unlike Plaintiff, however, when
        > this individual's EPC came to an end, the company assigned him to this
        new
        > position- bypassing the normal committee selection process- and creating
        > for him a development opportunity, although his background did not
        qualify
        > him for the position.
        >
        > Other younger EPC leaders were also given preferential treatment that
        older
        > EPC leaders (including Plaintiff) were not given. During 2000-early
        2001,
        > four of the eight EPC's stopped operating as EPC's.


        In addition to the African American EPC leader already discussed, a female
        EPC
        > leader (age 41), was placed in a temporary position when her EPC
        disbanded
        > until a promotional opportunity could be provided her late in 2001.
        Even
        > though she was no longer in her EPC role, she still received MICP in
        2001,
        > and company documents reflect it was based on her EPC position. And in
        > Plaintiffs own organization, another one of the six candidates proposed
        by
        > his VP was a 45 year old White male who transferred to a Program
        Director
        > position when his EPC ended, thereby enabling him to retain his MICP.
        > However, the remaining EPC to disband was led by a 60-year old White
        male,
        > who, instead of being placed in another position with continued MICP
        like
        > the younger White male and female and the younger African American male,
        > was laid off.
        >
        > Needless to say, confronted with this set of facts, Plaintiff complained
        > about his removal from MICP- locally to the Vice President of Human
        > Resources and to the President, and, when it appeared to him that he
        would
        > not achieve a satisfactory result locally, to the CEO of LMC at
        corporate
        > headquarters. After he complained to corporate, he was threatened with
        > retaliation by his VP, his HR Director, his former VP, and the local
        > President. Their threats were not empty.
        >
        > As a direct result of Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff has been passed
        > over for job after job. Ostensibly, despite his exemplary performance
        > history, he is no longer qualified to perform in a Program Director
        > position in Production Operations, because of perceived problems with
        his
        > "interpersonal skills". Time and time again, those jobs have gone to
        > younger men who are less experienced and less qualified, some of whom
        used
        > to report to Plaintiff. His old job, for which he received outstanding
        > performance ratings, was even given to someone else.
        >
        > The company has not only retaliated against Plaintiff by failing to
        award
        > him a Director-level MICP-eligible position, he was recently demoted to
        a
        > Manager-level position, because the company purportedly could no longer
        > carry him in his Director-level position. That is in spite of the fact
        > that the dollar value of the contracts Plaintiff generated in that
        position
        > continue to cover his Director's salary many times over, and he has
        saved
        > the company millions of dollars in that position.
        >
        > As a result of Defendant's age, race, and gender discrimination against
        > Plaintiff, he has lost approximately $1M in MICP and retirement
        > differential, assuming he retires at age 62. However, according to the
        > local President, HR wanted to terminate Plaintiff in the fall of 2002,
        but
        > the President refused to allow that to happen "while this lawsuit was
        going
        > on". It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the
        Plaintiff
        > will be terminated when this case is over, which would result in another
        > $1M in lost wages for him. Plaintiff's make whole relief thus
        constitutes
        > approximately $2 M. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory
        > damages for pain and suffering in an unlimited amount, and to punitive
        > damages of $100,000.
        >

        The missle company's defense:


        Defendant, a government defense contractor, alleges Plaintiff was removed
        from the MICP in 2001 because his job had been so reduced in scope that he
        was no longer a "key employee" expected to make substantial contributions
        to
        company objectives during Plan Year 2001.

        Six individuals within Plaintiff's VP's organization received MICP in
        2001:
        Four of the six are older than Plaintiff (age 53), and neither younger man
        is
        "substantially younger" (one man was 48, one 45). Moreover, only one of
        the
        six, a Program Director five years older than Plaintiff, was added to MICP
        in
        2001. Another individual, an African American male five years younger,
        received MICP in 2000 through another VP, but had recently transferred to
        Plaintiff's VP's organization.

        The African American would have received MICP in 2001, however, regardless
        of
        his race or his age. Generally speaking, individuals who receive MICP and
        transfer to other positions within the company- even if those positions
        had
        not previously been identified as MICP positions- are continued on MICP,
        in
        order to encourage key employees to take on other critical job
        assignments.
        Moreover, Plaintiff's VP testified that, between the two, the African
        American male was the more deserving, because of the significance of his
        role
        on the VP's largest program.

        Plaintiff's VP had initially recommended Plaintiff for MICP, but knowing
        that
        Plaintiff's EPC contract was winding down, that Plaintiff was only working
        ½
        time on it, and that the VP had been out looking for another position for
        Plaintiff, the VP HR confronted Plaintiff's VP when he received the
        recommendation. Plaintiff's VP explained that he had recommended
        Plaintiff
        because he was hopeful the missile contract would come through and
        Plaintiff
        could become its Program Director, thereby justifying his continuation on
        MICP.

        Coincidentally, the VP to whom Plaintiff reported on the missile proposal,
        who could have - but did not- recommend Plaintiff for MICP in that role-
        added to MICP in 2001 a Program Director who was 9 years older than
        Plaintiff.

        Plaintiff's insistence that the decision to remove him from MICP was
        somehow
        a result of his age or race or gender is simply incorrect. It is true
        that
        Defendant has a Diversity Council and diversity goals and objectives,
        although neither the Council or specific diversity objectives were in
        place
        prior to the decision to remove Plaintiff from MICP. It is likewise true
        that, as a government contractor, Defendant is subject to affirmative
        action
        requirements. In addition, Defendant is certainly attempting to respond
        to
        demographic studies that indicate the workforce of the future will be more
        diverse than it has been, and the success of future recruitment efforts
        will
        depend, in part, on the proven success of women and minorities in today's
        work environment. In addition, Defendant's workforce is aging, and thus
        various efforts have been made to retain older workers beyond their normal
        retirement eligibility and to recruit and train younger workers to fill
        the
        anticipated leadership void.

        However, none of these factors resulted in Plaintiff's removal from MICP.
        The average age of MICP participants in both 2000 (Plaintiff's last year
        on
        MICP) and 2001 (the year he was removed) was 54 years of age (older than
        Plaintiff). Only 4% of MICP participants were minorities, while 96% were
        white; and only 7.5% were female, while 92.5% were male. The simple fact
        is
        the scope of Plaintiff's EPC job was reduced to such an extent- he was
        only
        working ½ time on it!- that he no longer qualified for MICP.

        Plaintiff's belief that he has been unable to locate another
        Director-level
        MICP-eligible position because of his age (none of the subject jobs have
        gone
        to minorities or women, so there is no race or gender discrimination
        issue)
        and retaliation for having filed a discrimination complaint is ludicrous.
        Because he knew Plaintiff's EPC contract was coming to an end, Plaintiff's
        VP
        started talking to other VP's about positions that might become available
        which Plaintiff could fill. In the spring of 2001, before Plaintiff was
        removed from MICP, he was recommended (along with two others) for a such a
        position, but was not offered the position because based on comments
        Plaintiff made during the interview, the VP who interviewed him believed
        him
        not to be a team player.

        However, when Plaintiff later complained to the VP HR about his removal
        from
        MICP, he told the VP HR he had been offered the position and would have
        taken
        it had he known he would be coming off MICP. Because the President and
        the
        VP HR thought it would be unfair to remove Plaintiff from MICP if he had
        turned down a MICP-eligible position in reliance upon continued MICP in
        his
        current position, Plaintiff's removal was placed on "hold" until his claim
        could be investigated. The investigation revealed, however, that
        Plaintiff
        had misrepresented the VP/ interviewer's intentions.

        Worse, in spite of the VP HR's representation to Plaintiff that he would
        investigate his claim, without prior notice and even though he promised to
        give him a chance to review the matter, Plaintiff went around the VP HR
        and
        the President to the CEO at corporate. Yet Plaintiff cannot understand
        how
        that might not sit well with his bosses.

        In spite of their chagrin, however, the VP HR has continued to make sure
        Plaintiff's name is presented to selection committees considering
        candidates
        for available Director-level positions in Production Operations. However,
        the committees have selected other (sometimes younger- although the
        candidate
        selected for Plaintiff's prior job is older than Plaintiff) candidates
        with
        superior team building skills and performance records similar to
        Plaintiff's,
        for at least three positions. As a result, one and one half years later,
        there was insufficient Director-level EPC work to justify continuing
        Plaintiff in that position and the missile contract still had not been
        won.
        Even so, the President still refused to allow Plaintiff to be laid off,
        but,
        rather, directed that a Manager-level position be created for him,
        believing
        he still could make a contribution to the company.

        If, however, a jury believes that Plaintiff was discriminated against, his
        damages are limited to $46,000: $40,000 as the maximum amount of MICP he
        could have been awarded in 2001 (there being no way, by 2002 -a year past
        the
        final milestone review on the EPC contract and the missile contract no
        closer
        to being won- that he would have received MICP) and $6,000 as the present
        value of his front pay/retirement differential resulting from that MICP
        loss. And by October 2002, when there was insufficient Director-level
        work
        to justify retaining him in that Director position, he was demoted to a
        Manager-level position, which would never be MICP-eligible. There was
        insufficient Director-level work to justify retaining him in that Director
        position.

        what's your verdict?


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



        <p><hr></p>
        To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
        href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscrib
        e@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
        To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
        href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubs
        cribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
        <p><hr></p>

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.