 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
ntiff was unable to determine the sales in Gary, Indiana, and "with a great deal of reluctance" agreed to work at Gary, Indiana. (Tr. 179.) Based on the information that he did receive, plaintiff determined that the territory "was not sales competitive." (Tr. 335.)
{ } Plaintiff reported to Gary, Indiana in mid-January 1998. According to plaintiff's testimony, the information he was given indicated that the Gary, Indiana territory had a total sales of $1,568,000 for a period of time, and that an average territory had $4,000,000 in sales. Plaintiff indicated to the district manager, Mr. Hinchman, that he did not think that the territory was competitive. Plaintiff was concerned about his pay grade, and that his bonus earnings would be negatively affected, which would also affect his retirement annuity.
{ } According to plaintiff's testimony, Ross had a policy that salesmen were expected to live in the population mass of a territory, which was Gary, Indiana. Plaintiff observed that Gary, Indiana, was economically depressed. Plaintiff was surprised that the major catholic hospital was closed. Plaintiff described Gary, Indiana, as "unsavory" and "scary." (Tr. 193.) Plaintiff testified that he was concerned for his physical safety in Gary, Indiana, and that the city was "voted the most dangerous town in America two years in a row." (Tr. 470-471.) Plaintiff returned to Columbus and sent Ross a letter indicating that he felt that he was constructively dismissed. Regarding the Gary, Indiana territory, plaintiff testified as follows:
* * * It was very obvious from the materials that were provided, and the fact that the original territory did not exist anymore, they basically were providing me with materials for two counties that had been part of a previous territory. That indeed there was no territory, no job . And the attitude of the district manager kind of completed the puzzle that, indeed, this was a sales ruse. They were trying to get me to resign.
And so I felt I was constructively terminated. (Tr. 336-337.) According to plaintiff's testimony, relocation expenses for plaintiff to move to Gary, Indiana, were never requested nor approved.
{ } On a written evaluation of plaintiff, dated August 26, 1994, the following statement was made: "In his long career with Ross, [plaintiff] has had many responsible positions and now is in the twilight of his career. He wants to retire from Ross with strong self-esteem." (Plaintiff's exhibit 1.) A 1995 evaluation also states that plaintiff was " n the twilight of his career." (Plaintiff's exhibit 2.) Plaintiff was 53 years old at the time of this evaluation. These evaluations were signed by plaintiff's district manager at the time, Mr. Pini, and his regional manager at the time, Tom Mack.
{ } Plaintiff testified that Steve Schlies, a former PCDM in Chicago, was assigned the Memphis territory when it was still attached to the Columbus region. According to plaintiff, Mr. Schlies was offered a district manager position in Memphis the day he was offered the Gary, Indiana position. Mr. Schlies accepted a "full-line" district manager position in Memphis. A "full-line" representative was described as a salesman that called on hospitals, nursing homes, distributors, home care companies, and physicians. It was plaintiff's understanding that in July 1997, the Columbus region "absorbed" Memphis, and then by January 1998, Memphis was back in the Chicago region upon the elimination of the Columbus region. At trial, Mr. Insani did not recall the Memphis area ever being in the Columbus region. Mr. Lindberg also testified that the Memphis district was never part of the Columbus region. According to Bill Stadtlander, who had been
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|