 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mabry-Wright v. Zlotnik10/24/2005
JUDGMENT: Judgment Affirmed
{ } Defendant-appellant, Donald E. Zlotnik, and Plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant, Gale Mabry-Wright, both appeal the August 11, 2004 judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Allen County, Ohio.
{ } This dispute arises out of the termination of Mabry-Wright's employment with the Seraphim & Angel Agency ("Seraphim"), a non-profit organization established as a foster care agency in Lima, Ohio. Mabry-Wright had worked in the foster care field for over twenty years, and Zlotnik contacted her about setting up a private, non-profit foster care agency in late 2000. MabryWright agreed, and she signed an employment contract with Seraphim & Angel on December 8, 2000. The contract listed her title as Chief Operating Officer, indicated that her "salary" was to be 4.5% of the gross revenues of the agency, and specified that she could only be terminated "for cause shown."
{ } For the next several months Zlotnik and Mabry-Wright worked feverishly to set up the organization; Mabry-Wright in particular recruited foster parents, obtained all of the necessary licenses from the State of Ohio, and designed forms and files to help in the operation of the agency. However, because the agency was not generating revenues at this time, neither Zlotnik nor MabryWright was receiving compensation for their work in setting up the agency. Mabry-Wright contends that Zlotnik promised her "merit pay" for her work in setting up the agency operations.
{ } In September of 2001, Zlotnik drafted two "merit pay" contracts, one for himself and one for Ms. Mabry-Wright, which were presented to and approved by the agency's board of trustees. Those agreements indicated that Zlotnik and Mabry-Wright would receive $50,000.00 each in "merit pay" for their work in setting up the agency, to be paid out over time. The board recognized that Mabry-Wright had worked 90-100 hours a week for the previous eleven months and that her work had saved the agency $150,000 and would bring in an additional $250,000 in revenue.
{ } Shortly thereafter, however, the parties' relationship began to dissolve. Mabry-Wright began complaining to Zlotnik of various activities of his that she deemed unethical. Among her complaints were allegations that Zlotnik was allowing foster children to stay with him without having previous state approval, and she indicated that she was receiving complaints from both the county child and family services agencies and foster parents. Mabry-Wright was concerned about the effect these allegations would have on Seraphim, and she called a special board meeting to discuss Zlotnik's behavior.
{ } However, instead of being able to state her concerns about Zlotnik's behavior to the board, Mabry-Wright was presented with a letter signed by Nancy Bradford, the chairperson of the board, indicating that the board was putting her on 30 days probation for "numerous reported incidents of failing to act in the best interest of our foster children and inability to conduct business in a professional manner in respect to inner office relationships." The letter also indicated that the board had given Zlotnik the sole authority to terminate her at the end of the thirty day period. Mabry-Wright alleges that Zlotnik was in control of the board and that he had orchestrated this probation; there is evidence in the record of various dismissals of board members prior to and at this meeting. There was no indication by the members of the board of what the "numerous reported incidents" referred to, and no explanation was given to Mabry-Wright. She filed a formal grievance, requesting that she be informed of the allegations against her. The board failed to respon
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|