Bazzetta V. Daimler Ag - Complaint 5u54z

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS RECEIPT Document 1 NUMBER

a-co 5 I 'f1/6 D

Filed 09/28/04 Page 1 of 26

UlIUTED STArES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGA."I SOUTHERl"l DIVISION

. "

ORIGINAL rJfo Q:;tloc.h A-:f3

JUDGE: Cohn, Avern DECK : S. Division Civil Deck DArE : 09/28/2004 @ 16: 38:43 CASE NUMBER: 2:04CV73B06 ClIP BAZZETTA V. DAIIILERCHRYSLER (DA)

DAVID J. BAZZETTA, Plaintiff, -v-

DAiMLERCHRYSLER CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C. SUE ELLEN EISENBERG (P25530) KATHLEEN L. BOGAS (P25164) Attorneys for Plaintiff 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway Suite 145 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Tel: 248-258-6080 Fax: 248-258-9212

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND NOW COMES Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by and through his attorneys, Eisenberg & Bogas, P.C., and states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1.

T11is Court has jurisdihtion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (b) (1) (B)

(Sarbanes-Oxley); 29 U.S.C. § 626(c) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (Americans with Disabilities Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question ,

.

jurisdiction); and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a) (4) Gurisdiction over civil rights claims). This

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to

i

Filed 09/28/04 Page 2 of 26

28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law

claims of retaliation in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA

I

et seq. and the Miehigan Handieappersj Civil Rights Act, MCLA

I

discharge in violation of public policy.

2.

37.2101,

37.1101 and retaliatory

I

�le Unites States and resides in Macomb County,

Plaintiff is a eitizen of

Michigan.

3.

Defendant DaimlerChryslcr Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

4.

I Ja J

DaimlerChryslcr Corp. s a wholly-owned subsidiary and business unit of

DaimlcrChryslcr AG, a German corpo 5.

DaimlerChrysler AG,

tion.

I

s an international company that is listed on the

New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE;') and on other stock exchanges throughout the

rrl

world, DaimlerChrysler AG and Dai lerChrysler Corp. arc subject to the provisions of

I

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enacted in the U.S. in July 2002.

6.

meaning o[the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

7.

I

DaimlerChrysler Corp. is an agent of DaimlerChrysler AG within the I

i

l � � .I

DaimlerChrysler corp.

lso is a contractor of Daimler Chrysler AG within

the meaning of the Sarbanes-Oxley Ae .

8.

The discriminatory e

occurred within the State of Michigan

9.

PIOyment practices alleged

m

this Complaint

!

This is an action for retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of

�

2002, retaliation in violation of the A e Discrimination in Employment Aet ("ADEA''),

J

retaliation in violation of the Ameri ans with Disabilities Aet ("ADA"), retaliation in .

- 2-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 3 of 26

Rights Act ("ELCRA"), and the Michigan

violation of the Elliott-Larsen

Handicappers' Civil Rights Act ("E[CLA"). I O.

Defendant is an employer and Plaintiff was its employee within the

I

meaning orthe Sarbanes-Oxlcy Act, APEA, ADA, the ELCRA and the HCLA. 11.

1

On or about January 14 2004, Plaintiff was terminated from his position

with Defendant. 12.

On March 22, 2004, Plaintiff filed a timely complaint under Sarbanes-

J

Oxley with the Occupational safct Department of Labor. 13.

In accordance with 18

and Health istration ("OSHA") of the

l i 1 i

.S.C. § 1514A(b)(I)(B), the 180 day period in

which OSHA was to issue a final dee ion elapsed on September 18, 2004. OSHA has

I

not issued a final decision and Plaintif · has the right to proceed in the appropriate district court oCthe United States. 14.

f

On March 29, 2004, Plaintiff timely filed with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") a harge of retaliation in violation of the ADEA and ADA, which was within 300 days of the commission of the unlawful employment practices alleged in this claim. 15.

Plaintiff received his notice of right to sue on June 30, 2004, and hc has

b rI

filed this complaint within 90 days of r eeiVing his notice of rights. Exhibit A. 16.

.

Defendant has waived n writing any requirement that Plaintiff exhaust

Defendant's internal employee dispute resolution procedure or arbitrate his claims. Exhibit B. 17.

The amount in eontro\lersy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 4 of 26

costs. OF FACTS

ST

18.

Plaintiff was hired by

pefendarlt's predecessor, Chrysler Corp., in May

1983. Plaintiff was hired as a financiallanllly!;t. 19.

At all times relevant nel,C1<),Plaintiff performed his job diligently.

20.

On or about January

2004, Plaintiff was terminated from his position Analysis in the Product Development

as Director of Corporate and Product

("DCC").

Finance Group at DaimlerChrysler 21.

From March 2001 to

Manufacturing, Procurement

&

Corpol"dte Audit Department. then-Senior Vice President and "shake t11ings up in the Audit concerned the Corporate Audit responsibilities and was 22.

In the first meeting

Plaintiff was told by Mr. Struve that

2002, Plaintiff held the position of Director of and Research

&

Development Audit, in the

was placed in this position by Mr. James Donlon at DCC. Mr. Donlon instructed Plaintiff to because Mr. Donlon as Controller, was deeply become complacent about its mission and "cozy" witll the departments that it was auditing. Mr. Chuck Struve the VP of Corporate Audit, was not the first choice of available candidates to

the Audit group. 23.

In July 2001, during a

Audit Executive Committee meeting in

Stuttgart, , Plaintiff learned that business units within DaimlerChrysler AG continued to maintain secret bank aec;ounts to bribe foreign government officials even though the company knew and

that the practice was illcgal under Unitcd

States securities laws. -4-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

24.

Filed 09/28/04 Page 5 of 26

During the discussion, flubertus Buderath, Vice President of Corporate

Audit (Stuttgart) for DaimlerChryslcr

hG made a prescntation. I

Mr. Budcrath reported

that he had just returned from a trip to South America whcrc he had met with the CEO of the Mercedcs Benz Busincss Unit.

I

fv:!r. Buderath further explained that a common

b

practice of Daimler Benz prior to the a quisition of the Chrysler Corporation was the use i

of secret bank s to bribe government officials (i.e., a ecrtain amount was withhcld/deductcd from thc gross proc 6eds from the sale of each Mercedes vehicle at the

J

Business Unit and deposited in a local ank ). 25.

More specifically,

Mr.

I

Buderath stated that: (1) he had briefed the then-

J

Chairman of DCAG, Jurgen sehremp (to whom Mr. Buderath directly reported) as to

l

the fact that forty (40) s of this ature still existed; and (2) Dr. Manfred Gentz, the : CFO of DCAG, was aware of this practice and that the dollars represented by these

!

s were "buried" deep in DCAGis balance sheet. 26.

l d

Mr. Buderath further st ted that the company planned to wind-down this

practice (acknowledging that it viol ted SEC regulations) with the caveats that the

1

remaining forty s continued to xist world-wide and that these s would be difficult to eliminate because the chief:executives of the Business Units not only favored

i

this practice but believed it a necessary cost of doing business. 27.

I

On the day of the meeting, Plaintiff protested the company's continuing

J

use of the illegal secret bank aceou ts to the American Vice President in eharge of

J

Corporate Audit, Charles Struve, wh also was Plaintiffs immediate supervisor at the timo. 28 .

I��'"

l

of �,re�;"g oo�=

I

-

5-

obo",

th" Hlogal ,=tioo. M,. StMO

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

expressed dismay at Plaintiff raising th� issue. what was said."

Filed 09/28/04 Page 6 of 26

Mr. Struve instructed Plaintiff to "forget

Mr. Struve further i � sistcd that "issues that arisc in Corporate Audit

must rcmain in Corporate Audit."

29.

Mr. Struvc madc clear that he would undertake no action to invcstigatc or

recommend that the practice immediately eeasc, which Plaintiff believed Mr. Struve was obliged to do in his capacity as the head of Corporate Audit. 30.

As a result of Mr. Struve's response, Plaintiff believed hat he had to take

the issue to a person higher in the comrany's organization. 31.

Upon Plaintiff's return from Stuttgart, Plaintiff sought out Mr. Donlon to

rort the company's continuing violations of securities law.

32.

Plaintiff bclieved that Mr. Donlon, as a scnior corporate officer, was the

appropriate individual to investigatc and address the issues of secret bank s and bribery of foreign governmental officials and would the information onto his boss (Dr. Manfred Gcntz, Chief Financial Officer of DaimlerChrysler AG and mcmber of thc Board of Managcmcnt of DaimlerChryslcr AG), who had ultimatc responsibility for financial ovcrsight and compliance. 33.

Plaintiff protestcd thc company's illegal conduct to Mr. Donlon.

34.

Plaintiff also protested Mr. Struvc's failure to appropriately rcspond to

Plaintiff's complaint, Mr. Struvc's dismissivc attitude toward Plaintiffs complaint, and Mr. Struvc's thinly-vcilcd threat that Plaintiff should not take his complaint to anyonc outsidc Corporatc Audit. 35.

!

During Plaintiffs timc in thc Corporate Audit Dartment, March 2001 to

March 2002, Plaintiff was involvcd i� a number of audits that uncovcred qucstionable

- 6-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

business practiccs.

Filed 09/28/04 Page 7 of 26

The results of an a �dit can affect Defcndant's rorts to shareholders

and the Securitics and Exchangc Commission.

36.

. In a number of instanecs, including thc Prccious Metals Audit, the S%

Cost Reduction Audit and thc CN Process Audit, Mr. Struve forbade thc publication of these audits entirely or until they were dramatically changed.

37.

Mr. Struvc's position as the hcad of DaimlerChrysler's Corporate Audit

Departmcnt rcquircd him to sign and approve cvery audit.

Accordingly, if he did not

approve an audit, then thc audit would not bc released.

38.

Plaintiff rcasonably belicvcd that that Mr. Struvc's dccisions to withhold

certain audits were improper.

Plaintiff also reasonably belicved that the audits would

i

negativcly affect Daimler Chrysler's financial reports, and public statements made regarding the Company's Financial Turnaround Plan (2001-2003)

39.

Plaintiff repeatedly objected dircctly to Mr. Struve about thc withhcld

40.

Plaintiff also advised Mf. Donlon about the suppressed audits.

41.

Plaintiff provided copics of buried audits to Mr. Donlon.

42.

Mr. Donlon was not a member of the Corporate Audit Department. The

audits.

!

Corporate Audit Departmcnt, however, had a functional reporting relationship to Mr. Donlon in that thc audits were prepared for and transmittcd to Mr. Donlon. 43.

In October 2001, at a dinncr mecting, Hubertus Buderath, Mr. Struvc's

German eountcrpart, told Plaintiff that Mr. Struvc was retiring and that Plaintiff was Mr. Budcrath's ehoicc to head up the Auburn Hills Audit group. 44.

Mr. Buderath told Plaintiff that Mr. Struve blamed Plaintiff for pushing

- 7-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 8 of 26

Mr. Donlon to force Mr. Struve to retirc and that Mr. Struve did not want to retire. 45.

At the annual Audit D �Partmcnt mccting in Lamerbuckcl, in

l

December 2001, Mr. Struve along with Mr. Buderath told Plaintiff that Mr. Struve would

I

be retiring and that Plaintiff would not be placed into Mr. Struve's position.

i l J rrl I l l I

Previously,

in October 2001, Mr. Buderath told Pla ntiff that Plaintiff would receive Mr. Struve's job. 46.

When Plaintiff question d Mr. Buderath about the dccision to over

Plaintiff for Mr. Struvc's job, Mr. Bud rath replied that he had received new information from Mr. Struve that had changed his 47.

ind about Plaintiff.

When Plaintiff inquircd further, Mr. Buderath declined to provide details.

Mr. Struve and Mr. Buderath stated th t Plaintiff "did not fit the audit mold," which is a statement that Mr. Struve had repeat dlY made to Plaintiff during Plaintiff's time in Corporate Audit. 48. 49.

J

Plaintiff immediately re orted the foregoing to Mr. Donlon. I. In January 2002, Mr. Ddnlon asked Plaintiff to prepare a handwritten note

J

concerning the various matters in co orate Audit as to whieh Plaintiff had complained

I

and the retaliation to which Plaintiff had been subjected as a result of Plaintiff's

J

complaints to senior management insid and outside Corporate Audit. 50.

At that time, Plaintiff alSo complained to David Slates, Vicc Presidcnt of

I

Manufacturing Finance, who reported to Mr. Donlon and had the responsibility of

�

managing the head count for Mr. Donlo 's entire finance area. 51.

� l

In February 2002, Plain iff received the worst pcrformance evaluation in

his carecr. The written evaluation had been prepared by Mr. Struve prior to his January

I

2002 rctirement and was delivered to Plaintiff by Mr. Buderath. At no time during the

:

- 8-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

l

Filed 09/28/04 Page 9 of 26

"''' d;d M,. St,"" ro"""" "pro,;.. ny 00",,,"'';,, ro"'''''k 10 Pl,;,,;ff ili" w",Id have indicatcd that a significant pcrfo

Jrnancc issue cxisted that could cffcet his annual

�

cvaluation and therefore perfonnanee- elated compensation (bonus, stock options and

I

merit raise) 52.

The 2001 perfonnance evaluation given in February 2002 was retaliatory.

53.

Mr. Struve blamed Plai�tiff for his early retirement because he belicved

that Plaintiff had bcen rorting Audit Dartmcnt improprieties to Mr. Donlon. 54.

l rL

Mr. Struvc also retali ted against Plaintiff for repeatedly protesting

improper practices in the audit depa

;

cnt, including its sanctioning thc secret bank

s used for bribing forcign government officials and the suppression of various

I

I

audits. 55.

Plaintiff believed that Mr. Buderath was threatened by Plaintiffs

!

connection to Mr. Donlon, who was I highcr than Mr. Buderath in the organizational

I

structure, given Mr. Buderath's belief that Mr. Donlon had forced Mr. Struve to retire as

l

a result of Plaintiffs complaints about uditing and financial improprieties. 56.

I

At the time that Mr. Buderath delivered the evaluation, he said, "your

I J J

friend Mr. Donlon bettcr save you this t me." 57.

This declaration was a t reat, which Plaintiff reported to Mr. Donlon.

58.

As

a result of the fore oing, Mr. Donlon arranged for Plaintiffs return

transfer to the Finance Department. 59.

I

l l

Mr. Donlon's interventi n prolonged Plaintiffs tenure until January 14,

2004, when Plaintiff was tenninated by Defendant. I 60. Plaintiff was tenninated two (2) calendar weeks after Mr. Donlon's

I .,.

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 10 of 26

December 31,2003 retirement from Defendant. 61.

I

In an attempt to co nter the serious concerns raised by Plaintiff,

Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was responsible for a questionable ing entry. The investigation carried out by the Business Practices Office (which reports to Mr. Buderath) made no effort to discover the ing entry was a documented instruction

b J

from Mr. Donlon to Plaintiffs im ediate supervisor Mr. Ed Labatch, then-Vice

� 1

President of Product Development Fi ance. 62.

On or about Dccembe 17, 2003, Plaintiff was instructed by Noc1 Baril

(Human Resources Represcntative) and Mr. Labatch (plaintiffs then-supervisor) that Plaintiff had to demote his SUbordinat Mr. Wayne Worlcy. 63.

Mr. Baril and Mr. Labiltch told Plaintiff that the rcason for thc demotion

6 l

was that that Mr. Worlcy was "old" an "sick." 64.

Mr. Worley was at the imc approximately 53 years old and had a history

of serious health-related issues. 65.

l r

Plaintiff vigorously P tested to both Mr. Baril and Mr. Labatch that their orley reported to Plaintiff and Plaintiff personally

decision was illegal inasmuch as Mr.

knew that Mr. Worley had no pertormance deficiencics, much less any deficiency sufficient to justify a demotion. 66.

After much discussion, Plaintiff was permitted to offer to Mr. Worley only

an "opportunity" to transfer to a plant supervisor position in Toledo as an alternative to demotion. 67.

That offer, however, Was a sham because Plaintiff knew in advance that

l

Mr. Worley would not accept a positi

in Toledo.

- 10-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

68.

k;

,

""II

l

Filed 09/28/04 Page 11 of 26

of tho ,om " of both MI, Bmil md MI, L""toh, PI""tiff

was forced to demote Mr. Worley on December 17, 2003.

I I �

COUNT I

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

69.

Plaintiff incorporates b reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as if fully set

I

I

forth at length herein. 70.

Defendant violated the sarbaneS-OXley Aet when it discriminated against

J l

Plaintiff by terminating him because e had reported a violation or suspccted violation of law,including but not limited to the F reign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended. 71.

�

As a direct and proxi ate result of Defendant's unlawful actions against

Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuri �s and damages, including, but not limited to, loss

d t b

of earnings; loss of career opportuniti s; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the community; and t

loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life,

including the opportunity to pursue th gainful occupation of choice; and will continue to

;

suffer these damages in the future. Aaditionally, Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees ana costs. WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter juagment

Jment with the same seniority status that Plaintiff

against Defendant including reinstat

I b

would have had but for the discrim nation or an award of front pay; back pay with interest; compensatory damages inelU ing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such

I

other relief as the Court deems appropriate at the time of final judgment.

- 11-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 12 of 26

COUNT II RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA

72.

�

Plaintiff incorporates b reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as if fully set

I

forth at length herein. 73.

I

Less than one month before his termination, Plaintiff complained to

I

Defendant that Wayne Worley was being discriminated against on the basis of his age. 74.

I

Plaintiff reasonably believed that Wayne Worley was being discriminated

I

against on the basis of his age. 75.

Defendant discharged �Iaintiff.

76.

Plaintiffs complaint of age discrimination was a motivating factor i n

I

� ! l

Defendant's decision t o discharge Plai tiff. 77.

Defendant's retaliatOry eonduct was willful.

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff res eetfUllY requests that this Court enter judgment

dment with the same seniority status that Plaintiff

against Defendant including reinstat

I

would have had but for the discrimination or an award of front pay; back pay with

I

interest; compensatory damages including costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such

h

other relief as the Court deems approp ate at the time of final judgment.

- 12-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 13 of 26

.COUNT III RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA

78.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set

forth at length hcrein.

79.

Lcss than one month before his termination, Plaintiff complained to

Defendant that Waync Worley was being discriminated against on the basis of a pereeived disability.

80.

Plaintiff reasonably belicved that Wayne Worley was being discriminatcd

against on thc basis of his record of

a physical

or mental impairment that substantially

limits one or more major life activities and/or because he was regarded as having such an impairment.

81.

Defendant discharged Plaintiff.

82.

Plaintiffs complaint of disability discrimination was a motivating factor

in Defendant's decision to dischargc lilaintiff.

83.

Defcndant's retaliatory conduct was committcd with malicc or with

rccklcss indiffercncc to Plaintiffs protected rights.

84.

As a direct and proximate result of Dcfcndant's unlawful actions against

Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings; loss of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the community; and tllc loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the opportunity to pursue the gainful occupation of choice.

Additionally,

Plaintiff has incurred attorncy fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff resp ectfully requests that this Court enter judgment

- 13 -

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 14 of 26

against Defendant including reinstate�ent with the same seniority status that Plaintiff would have had but for the discrimination or an award of front pay; back pay with interest; compensatory damages including costs, and reasonable attomcy fees; and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate at the time of final judgment. COUNT IV RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF E LCRA

85.

Plaintiff incorporates by refcrence paragraphs I through 84 as if fully set

forth at length herein.

86.

Less than a month before his tennination, Plaintiff complained to

Defendant that Wayne Worley was being discriminated against on the basis of his age.

87.

Plaintiff reasonably bclieved that Wayne Worley was being discriminated

against on the basis of his age.

88.

Defendant discharged �Iaintiff.

89.

Plaintiffs complaint of age discrimination was a significant factor in

Defendant's decision to discharge Plai�tiff.

90.

As a direct and proximate rcsult of Defendant's unlawful actions against

Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings; loss of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the community; and Uie loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, ,

including the opportunity to pursue. the gainful occupation of choice.

Additionally,

Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees an� costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court entcr judgment !

against Dcfcndant including reinstatemcnt with the same seniority status that Plaintiff ,

- 14-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 15 of 26

would have had but for the discrimination or an award of front pay; back pay with

b

interest; compensatory damages inCIU ing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such

I

other relief as the Court deems appropriate at the time of final judgment.

1 I

COUNT V

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN HANDICAPPERS' CIVIL RIGHTS ACT ("HCRA") .

i

91.

�

Plaintiff incorporates b reference paragraphs 1 through 90 as if fully set

forth at length herein 92.

Less than a month before his termination, Plaintiff complained to

I

Defendant that Wayne Worley was! being discriminated against on the basis of a

I

perceived handicap. 93.

Plaintiff reasonably believed that Wayne Worley was being discriminated

against on the basis of his record of

l J

physical or mental impairment that substantially

limits one or more major life activitie andlor because he was regarded as having such an impairment.. 94.

Defendant discharged I:laintiff.

95.

Plaintifrs complaint of handicap discrimination was a significant factor in

i

l J b b

Defendant's decision to discharge Plai tiff. 96.

As

a direct and proxi atc result of Dcfendant's unlawful actions against

Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuri s and damages, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings; loss of career oPPOrlUniti s; mental and emotional distress; loss of rutation

J

and esteem in the community; and t c loss of the ordinary plcasures of everyday life,

Ii

including the opportunity to pursuc the gainful occupation of choice. Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees and costs.

- 15

-

Additionally,

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff

Filed 09/28/04 Page 16 of 26

requests that this Court enter judgment

�

against Defendant including reinstate ent with the same seniority status that Plaintiff

I

would have had but for the discrim�nation or an award of front pay; back pay with

h �

interest; compensatory damages inCIU ing eosts, and reasonable attorney fees; and such other relief as thc Court deems approP iate at the time of final judgment.

I

COUNT VI

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

97.

l

Plaintiff incorporates b reference paragraphs 1 through 96 as if fully set

forth at length herein. 96.

Defendant through its agents, servants, or employees, violated public

policy cnshrined in thc Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and/or federal securities laws, regulations and/or rules. 97.

r

Plaintiff refused to Vi late these policies and reported the actions of

certain agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendant to Defendant's upper management levels. 98.

,

Defendant discharged laintifT in whole or in part for refusing or failing to

violate the federal publie poliey enshrined in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and/or

1

federal seeurities laws, and for r rting the actions of the agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendant to Defendant's upper management levels. 99.

J t J J

As a direct and proxi ate result of Defendant's unlawful actions against

Plaintiff, PlaintifT has sustained injUr

and damages, including, but not limited to, loss

of earnings; loss of career opportuniti s; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem i n the community; and t e loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life,

- 16-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 17 of 26

including the opportunity to pursuc thc gainful occupation of choice.

Additionally,

Plaintiff has incurrcd attorncy fccs and costs.

f

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff res cctfullY requests that this Court enter judgment

against Defcndant including reinstatement with the same seniority status that Plaintiff

I

would havc had but for the discrimination or an award of front pay; back pay with

6 h

interest; compcnsatory damages inCIU ing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such other rclicf as the Court deems approp ate at the time of final judgmcnt.

EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C.

By:

Sue Ellen Eisenberg (P25530) Kathleen L. Bogas (P25164) Attorneys for Plaintiff 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway Suite 145

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Phone: 248-258-6080 Date: Septcmber 28, 2004

- 17 -

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 18 of 26

FROM Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

P.3

Filed 09/28/04 Page 19 of 26

u.s. EQUAL EN.lPL,OY'l\P:NT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Detroit District Office

477 M!
(313) 226-4600

TIY (313)226-7599 FAX (3'13) 226-2778

une 30. 2004

David Bazzctta 48757 Elmhurst

�omb,�I48044 Bazzetta vs, Daimler Clnysler

RE;.

Charge No; 230-A4-013S7

Dear Mr. Bazzetta: This letter is sent to provide you with an oyerv:iew of the infonnation and evidence compiled

'

during the investigation of the above-referenced charge of discrimination. Based upon the information listed below, the EEOC has d�term.ined that the processing of this matter will be discontinued. This decision was made due to tqe fact that the information obtained during the

l

,investigation does not a'conclusion that the statute(s) complained of haslhave been

: vi;�Iat�d.

'

.

.

I "'

'.

.

OnMarch .25,2004, you filed acbarge of discrimination

L L �

The investigation of your charge has reveal 1.

The investigation failed to p factor of your discharge. In

.

the following;

duce eviden�e to show that retaliation was the diti on. you never complained internally or opposed

discrimination. Moreover, yciu only stated that it was not right to terminate an employee Who was old and sick. Furthennore, a lot of your allegations are non..

jurisdictional.

2.

Due to the evidence provided in this icase it is unlikely that further investigation into this

3;

matter would result in

.

a

cause finding. Therefore, it appears that there is a legitimate

... . nondiscriminatory. reason for your alleged allegations.

'. I

.'

Based on this evidence.. the EEOC is 'unable to conclude that retaliation. was a factor in the Respondent's decision regarding you. Wheti the evidence fails to meet Ii "more likely than not"

stan£iard, the EEOC has n o choice but to dismiss the qharge. Further, .this dismissal does not . . . state that the Respondent was in compliance with the statutes, ,

.

.

,

-1998 7,53PM

FROM

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 20 of 26

. It should be noted that the Dismissal and :Noticc of Rights which you. receive relatiog to your charge will allow you. to proceed with yo� allegations in federal court, if you so desire. UPON

. RECEIPT OF THE DISl\USSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU FILE SUIT IN THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICT COURT wrrmN NINETY (90) DAYS OF RECEIPT, FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR LOSS OF RIGRT TO PROCEED IN COURT. .An informdtion sheet outlining your rights and filing procedures will accompany the Dismissal and Notice MRights. Further, the EEOC will provide you, upon request, with a list of attorneys who pra.cti e in the field of employment discrimination. Please note that the EEOC does not recommend the att orneys nor make any representation regarding their abilities.

�

4

Sincerely,

I j �-' . p!::. "

, .. - "

,

P. 1

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 21 of 26

313 AM FR CLARK HILL,Document Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS 1

9SS

CtARKffiLL ,

P.02

TO 912482589212 Filed8252 09/28/04 Page 22 of 26

2004 11: 37

.'

"

,"

pte

500 Woodward Avenue

:

WiII!:>m G. Aslm.ids, Jr.

(13) 965·8880 [email protected]

8ui«3500

Detd'l', Michigan 482Z6·J4.1S

Td. (313) 965·8.100 r Fax (.>1.» 96;.6252 : www.d.rkhrll.""",

August 26, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Sue· Ellen Eisenberg Eisenberg & Bogas, l>.c. 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite #145 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 David Bazzetta

Re:

Dear Ms. Eisenberg: DaimlerChrysler Corporation's Employee Dispute Resolution Process (EDRP) was designed to provide a fair, timely, and [impartial method to resolve =J;lloyment disp ute s Important to the EDRP i s the concept that if the dispute is not resolved through the frrs t several steps, then the dispute is submitted to binding arbitration for f'mal resolution. Arbitration under the BDRP affords both parties the opportunity to discover facts ing their respective positions, as well as the opportunity to J;lresent their respective cases to an impartial, experienced arbitrator. Arbitration under the EDRP [also offers a quick and cost-effective method of resolving disputes, unlike the courts. .

In your letter of June 28. 2004, you raised

several objections to the EDRP on behalf of

Mr. Bazzetta and made clear that you did not believe that the EDRP was enforceable. (Notably. DaimlerChrysler does not agree that the EDRP is unenforceable.)· But, despite your client's apparent objection to the EDRP. he has proceeded with the EDRP, including submitting Part A "Dispute Notice," and Part C "Employee Appeal For Corporate Review." In you letter of July

30, 2004, you requested that we "dispense with the Corporate Review stage of tlle EDRP and agree to proceed to arbitration." You also write in that July 30, 2004 letter. however, that you "continue to preserve all of our objections to the company's EDRP procedure as outlined in our letter of June 28, 2004." It is apparent to us [that you want to proceed with arbitration under the EDRP, but reserve your ability to object to the enforceability of an unfavorable ruling. Such a stance ignores and undermines the .central purpose of the EDRP to provide a fair, timely. and impartial method to resolve employment disputes. •

.

•

To sum uJ;l, in light of your objectionk. DaimlerChryslcr is unwilling to proceed further with the EDRP (specifically including arbitration) and will not issue a response under Part D. Nevenheless; we continue to believe that there are benefits to both parties i n bringing this matter 3326S58vl 167501097415

Vl!tTolt, Michigan. Birmingham., Mlcht�rtn

i

La.nsing, MicJtigan I ,

.

AM FR CLARK HI Document 1 11:37 Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS

2004

TO 912482589212 Filed 8252 09/28/04 Page 23 of 26

P.03

Ms. Sue Ellen Eisenberg August 26, 2004 Page 2

to a final resolution through binding arb·itrJltio·o. PI=o me if you wish to discuss tenns

of an agreement to arbitrate.

Very truly yours,

---

WGNbb

33zGS58vl

16750109741$

**

TOTAL

PRGE.03

**

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 24 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTE� DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID J. BAZZETTA, Plaintiff, Case No.

0 L/ 7 3 �Co ,...

Judge Magistrate Judge

-v-

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP., a Delaware Corporation,

-

AVERN COBN.,,.

MAGISTRATE JUD GE DONALD A. SCHEER

Defendant.

EISENBERG & BOGAS, p.e. SUE ELLEN EISENBERG (P25530) KATHLEEN L. BOGAS (P25164) Attorneys for Plaintiff 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway Suite 145 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Tel: 248-258-6080 Fax: 248-258-9212

,--

=7< ... :::;r-

I

JURY DEMAND

. �

U

A

J:,;.

\0

Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by land through his attorneys, hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C.

By: Sue Ellen Eisenberg (P25530) Kathleen L. Bogas (P25164) Attorneys for Plaintiff 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway Suite 145 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Phone: 248-258-6080

Date: September 28, 2004

- 18-

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1

Filed 09/28/04 Page 25 of 26

ORIGINAL

O akland

CIVIL COVER SHEET COUNTY IN WHICH THIS ACTION AROSE:

JS 44 1 1/99

g � (j 6

The JS-44 eMI cover shoot and the Information contained hereIn neither replace nor supp leme nt the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required e ta by law, excep t as prov[ded by local rules of court. This form, approved by the JudicIal Conference of the t 974 tatas ( re 1!red for use of the Clerk of Court for tha purpose of Initialing the civil docket sheet.

I.

(a) PLAINTIFFS

O

DEFENDANTS

David J. Bazzetta

W �f ':I:: _ ,

'

DaimlerChrysler Corporation

(b) County of Residence of First Us ted

.

(C) Marney's (Firm Name Address. and Telephon<> Number)

, .,

AUomeys (I f Known

)

i.

,

{]OJ'-�'L0i.�:-" .ci\�' Jl\\.,��. �

Sue Ellen Eisenberg (P25530) Kathleen L. Bogus (P25164) :'i Eisenberg & Bogas PC Suite 145 33 Bloomfield Hills �Atl' I (} G Parkwav. Bloomfield Hills. Ml 48304 (248) 258-5080 III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Pisco an "X"1n One Box for PIalnIIff II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placo an "X" In One Box 00'1)

o

1 U.S, Government Ptalntlff

o

2 U.S. Government Defendant

0 0

0 0

� 3F

o

0 151 Medicare Ad 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted S1udent l.oons (E)(cI. Veterans) 153 R&cov.tyor OV1tfPllYIOell! 0 of V ler n's Benefits 0 160 SlockhoIdm's' Sulls 0 100 OlherConlract

a a

eral Question

(U.S, Government Not a Party)

4 Diversity (tndlcate CItizenship of Parties

(PlAce nn "X" fn 000 Box Only )

TORTS

o 31 0 Afrplane CJ 315Alrplane Product liability

0

320 Assault Libel And Stander

0

330 Federal Employe,.'

0 0

:l4O Marine 345 Marino Product Uabillty 350 Motor Vehlcla 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Olher Personal lnjury

0 0

U._

��Vo!lng, r{..

CIVIL RIGHTS

210 Land Condemnation

0 220 Forocfosuro la 0 230 Re nt !.eas. & Ej\tC1ma 0 240Tortl to Land 0 245 Tort Produ ct LIability 0 290 All Other Reef Prnpeny

1M

362 Personal lnJuryMoo. Ma lpracUce

0 3 135 0

/Jr':.'8.%l'WM@'-

368 Asbestos Personal In;ury Product Uability

PERSONAL PROPERTY

o 370 Other Fraud o 371 Truth In Lending o 380 Other PSf'S{lnal 0

?

Product Ua lIIty

0 51 0 Motions to Vacale Sentence :

AccommodaUoo.

0

Habeas Corpus:' 530 Geneml '

o 444Weff'are 0 535 Ooolh Penalty D 440 Other CivU Rigllts 0 54() MandarmJS & Olhet 0 550 Civil Rights! 0 555 Prison Condition

,.....-v:-e�GlN

�

�I(lal P roceedJ ng

Clllzen of Anolh.r

0

610 Agriculture 620 Other Food &. Drug 625 Drug Related SelzlXe

0

630 Uquor Laws

ofProplrly 21: 861

640 R.R. & Trucil;

0

650 A1rtlna Regs.

0

660 Occupational

Removed from St ato Court

0

3

Remanded from Appellate Court

!0

04 04

Incorporated and Principal of Business 1n Another Stale

05 Os

Foreign Nallon

06 06

0

71 () FalrlAborStandartis

0 423 WIthdrawal

28 USC 157

SOCIAl. SECURITY

0

Aol 720 Lnbor/Mgmt. Relations

0

730 LaborlMamt Reporting

0

740 Ra ilway Labor Act

0

7DO Other Labor Llti gatofl

& Disclosure �

0 861 H IA(' 30.'1) 0 862 Clack Lung (923)

0 863 O!WClOIWW (405(g)) 0 864 5510 TIlle XVI CI B65 RSI ('05(g) FEDERAL. TAXSUtTS

o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant}

'rol Empt Ret. loc.

OTHER STATUTES

nANKRUPTCY 0 422Appoal 26 USC 158

0 820 Copyrights 0 630 Patent 0 840 Trademark

0

SecurllyAcI

02

Incorporated "r Principal Plaes of Bus [ness In This Slate

PROPERTY ruGHTS

Safoty/Health 6000thor

0

I

0 3 03

0 0 0

o 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

Cl Cl o Cl o

400 Slnls Reapportlonmant 41 0Antitrust 430 Banks and Banl<.lng 450CommorcelC J C

..

460 Deportallon

Cl 470 Rackal t Inftusncad & Canupt Organizations CJ 810 So lechv o SafVico o 850

s� rl!ie,lCom mod 1!IeV

Excltange o 875 Customer Challonue 12 USC 3410

o 891 Agricultural Acts

o

692 EcooomJc SlabIlilatton Act

o 693 EnWonmenial Mailers

o 894 Energy Allocation Ad o 89 5 Freedom of lnfoonatlon Act

o 900 'ir:�Ic;: Under Equal Acetin toJUIUce CI 9"'...0 Constitutionality 0 r

a

Slale St tu tes

CI 890 0Uler 51aMOI)' AcUona

'

(PLACE AN''X" IN ONE BOX ONLy)

02

2

LA!lOR

Property Damage 3S5 Property Damage

PRISONER PETIT IONS

4 2 Employment 443 Housing!

01 0

0

and One Be»: for Defendanl) DEF PLA

DEF

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

Pi!RSONAL INJURY

0

PLA

Clllzon ofThls Slate

Clllzen or Subject of a Fomlan Coun!rv

PERSONAl. INJURY

0 195 Contract Product UabiUly 0

0

(For Diversity Cases Only)

In Itam 111)

1 1 0 Insumnca 120 Marlne 130 M il ler Act 140 NegoUablo Instrument 150Recovery of Ovorpayment and Enforcemenc of Judgment

REAL PROPERTY

l

~

IV, NATURE OF SUIT CONTRACT 0

\I \\'"\r.,t;:�D �\SlRJ:i 'E. \Juu7"

4

'

��lnstated Reonon od

05

Appeel to District

Transferred from

another district (spselfy)

o 6 Multi d l strl c l UllOatlon

o 7 Judge from Magistrate

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Clm the u.s. eMlStatute underwtUchyoo nroflllng andwrlte brlaf stalement of cause. Do not

Cole jurfsdiclioaal slalulesunless dl,verslly.;

DiscriminationlRetaliation in volation orthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, ADEA; ADAct; Elliott-Larsen Civils Rights Act; Michigan f..Tfln(fil":"Innpr� ("",vii 'R iO'ht� Art- finn rPtnHntol"V (if�,.hflfi'l'p in violfltfl'ln nfPtlhltr: i'nlirv

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

0 CHECK IF THIS ISA CLASS ACTIO UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

(See

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) Instructions):

IF ANY DATE

.

I..............------�------------------Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 """'

c

��? PURSUANT TO LOCAL

," " ,

RULE 83.11

Is this a case that has been p reviously dismissed?

.

1.

Filed 09/28/04 Page 26 of 26

I f yes, give the following information: Cou�

DYes

@

-,�_______

________________________

Case No.: Judge:

_______________________-,-_________

�---------

________________________

Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other court, including state court? (Companion cases are.malters in which it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the. same or related parties arc present and !the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.)

2.

� �

If yes, give the following information: court:

____________________ �________ __

__

Case No.: Judge:

-'-__________

___________________

.;..-

____________

____

Notes: -

--------

--+-

--------_._------

--- -----_._._----- ---- _._

--