 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
BR>
Q: By the same token, you would like to put your best salesman in a low performance territory and try to turn it around.
A: Yes.
Q: It is a balancing act.
A: Yes. (Tr. 965-966.)
{ } Mr. Insani testified that he made the decision that plaintiff would be offered the position in Gary, Indiana. Mr. Insani testified that he told his regional managers and others that he did not expect plaintiff to take the Gary, Indiana territory. Greg Lindberg, who took over the vice president of sales position from Mr. Insani, also testified regarding the position that was made available to plaintiff. When he was asked who made the decision to give plaintiff the Gary, Indiana territory, Mr. Lindberg responded as follows:
Maybe if I could just review, basically, how we handled it from a regional manager's perspective. We basically asked each regional manager to be responsible for making sure their primary care district manager had a position. So, the first place to look would be within their own region.
Now, in this particular situation the only vacant territory in the Columbus region, which also was going to be eliminated, was the Gary, Indiana territory. (Tr. 1727.) Mr. Lindberg testified that he played a role in the reduction in force and the redeployment of employees in 1997. Mr. Lindberg also testified that Charlie Fisher was the regional manager for plaintiff during this time. Regarding the extent that Mr. Fisher was involved in deciding where to place plaintiff, Mr. Lindberg testified as follows:
I am not sure that I would characterize it that [Mr. Fisher] was actively a part. [Mr. Fisher] knew that we were * * * placing the primary care district managers within their region where they had vacancies.
That is something that we had communicated to the regional managers. It was kind of a forgone conclusion that if that was the only vacancy, then that is where the primary district manager would be redeployed to. (Tr. 1729.)
{ } Plaintiff thought that his job was going to be eliminated in connection with an early October 1997 meeting. At the October 3, 1997 meeting involving plaintiff and his employer, plaintiff arrived with his lawyer. The meeting was cancelled because Mr. Lindberg said that he could not meet with plaintiff and his lawyer without an Abbott lawyer present. Mr. Lindberg testified that the plan for the meeting was to discuss plaintiff's relocation to the Gary, Indiana territory. According to Mr. Lindberg, the Gary, Indiana territory was the only vacant territory in the Columbus region. The meeting was not rescheduled. Plaintiff testified that he brought a lawyer to the meeting because he thought the issues discussed at the meeting were going to affect his employment with Abbott. He thought he was "going to be forced out of Ross." (Tr. 171, 287.) Plaintiff was 55 years old at the time.
{ } Counsel for Abbott sent a letter to counsel for plaintiff indicating that if plaintiff was unwilling to meet with his managers without his counsel present, then his managers would communicate with him in writing regarding the subject of the previously scheduled meeting. (Plaintiff's exhibit 8.) Plaintiff was also informed that his district job was being eliminated and that he had the option to go to Gary, Indiana, as a medical-nutritional representative, or to accept an outplacement program and receive 39 weeks of compensation .
{ } Plaintiff sought information about the Gary, Indiana territory upon learning about his employment option. Plaintiff testified that he could not obtain good sales information regarding the Gary, Indiana territory because it had been collapsed. Plai
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|