Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 1 of 26 RECEIPT NUMBER 5 I 6 D ORIGINAL oc A . " UTED STArES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGA. SOUTHERl DIVISION DAVID J. BAZZETTA, Plaintiff, -v- DAiMLERCHRYSLER CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C. SUE ELLEN EISENBERG (P25530) KATHLEEN L. BOGAS (P25164) Attoeys for Plaintiff 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway Suite 145 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Tel: 248-258-6080 F: 248-258-9212 DGE : Cohn, Avern DECK : S. Division Civil Deck DE : 09/28/2004 @ 16: 38:43 CE : 2:04C3B06 C BAZZEA V. DAICL (DA) COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND NOW COMES Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by and through his attoeys, Eisenberg & Bogas, P.C., and states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. T1 1is 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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 1 of 26RECEIPT NUMBER a-co 5 I 'f1/6 D ORIGINAL
rJfo Q:;tloc.h A-:f3 . "
UlIUTED STArES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGA."I
SOUTHERl"l DIVISION
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
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 6 of 26
expressed dismay at Plaintiff raising th� issue. Mr. Struve instructed Plaintiff to "forget
what was said." 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
rcport 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 accounts and
bribery of foreign governmental officials and would pass 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 Dcpartment, 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 Filed 09/28/04 Page 7 of 26
business practiccs. The results of an a�dit can affect Defcndant's rcports to shareholders
and the Sec uri tics 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
negativcly affect Daimler Chrysler's i financial reports, and public statements made
regarding the Company's Financial Turnaround Plan (2001-2003)
audits.
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
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, Germany in
December 2001, Mr. Struve along with lMr. Buderath told Plaintiff that Mr. Struve would I
be retiring and that Plaintiff would not be placed into Mr. Struve's position. Previously,
in October 2001, Mr. Buderath told Plaintiff that Plaintiff would receive Mr. Struve's job.
46. When Plaintiff questionld Mr. Buderath about the dccision to pass over
Plaintiff for Mr. Struvc's job, Mr. BudJrath replied that he had received new information
from Mr. Struve that had changed his rrlind about Plaintiff.
47. When Plaintiff inquircd Ifurther, Mr. Buderath declined to provide details.
Mr. Struve and Mr. Buderath stated thlt Plaintiff "did not fit the audit mold," which is a
statement that Mr. Struve had repeatldlY made to Plaintiff during Plaintiff's time in
Corporate Audit. I 48. Plaintiff immediately reJorted the foregoing to Mr. Donlon.
I. 49. In January 2002, Mr. Ddnlon asked Plaintiff to prepare a handwritten note
concerning the various matters in coJorate Audit as to whieh Plaintiff had complained I
and the retaliation to which Plaintiff had been subjected as a result of Plaintiff's
complaints to senior management insidJ 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. In February 2002, Plain�iff received the worst pcrformance evaluation in
his carecr. The written evaluation had lbeen 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 Filed 09/28/04 Page 9 of 26
"''' d;d M ,. St,"" ro"""" "pro,; .. lny 00",,,"'';,, ro"'''''k 10 Pl,;,,;ff ili" w ",Id
have indicatcd that a significant pcrfoJrnancc issue cxisted that could cffcet his annual
cvaluation and therefore perfonnanee-�elated compensation (bonus, stock options and
merit raise) I 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 rcporting Audit Dcpartmcnt improprieties to Mr. Donlon.
54. Mr. Struvc also retalilted against Plaintiff for repeatedly protesting
improper practices in the audit deparLcnt, including its sanctioning thc secret bank
; accounts used for bribing forcign government officials and the suppression of various
I
Plaintiff believed that I Mr. Buderath was threatened by Plaintiffs !
audits.
55.
connection to Mr. Donlon, who was Ihighcr than Mr. Buderath in the organizational I
structure, given Mr. Buderath's belief that Mr. Donlon had forced Mr. Struve to retire as
a result of Plaintiffs complaints about luditing and financial improprieties. I
56. At the time that Mr. Buderath delivered the evaluation, he said, "your
friend Mr. Donlon bettcr save you this tIme."
57. This declaration was a tJreat, which Plaintiff reported to Mr. Donlon.
58. As a result of the foreJoing, Mr. Donlon arranged for Plaintiffs return
transfer to the Finance Department. I 59. Mr. Donlon's interventiln prolonged Plaintiffs tenure until January 14,
2004, when Plaintiff was tenninated bylDefendant. 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.
I 61. In an attempt to co nter the serious concerns raised by Plaintiff,
Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was responsible for a questionable accounting entry.
The investigation carried out by the Business Practices Office (which reports to Mr.
Buderath) made no effort to discover the accounting entry was a documented instruction
from Mr. Donlon to Plaintiffs imbediate supervisor Mr. Ed Labatch, then-Vice
President of Product Development FiJance.
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 SUbordinat1 Mr. Wayne Worlcy.
63. Mr. Baril and Mr. Labiltch told Plaintiff that the rcason for thc demotion
was that that Mr. Worlcy was "old" an6 "sick."
64. Mr. Worley was at the limc approximately 53 years old and had a history
of serious health-related issues.
65. Plaintiff vigorously Pltested to both Mr. Baril and Mr. Labatch that their
decision was illegal inasmuch as Mr. r orley reported to Plaintiff and Plaintiff personally
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
Mr. Worley would not accept a positil in Toledo.
- 10-
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 11 of 26
68. k; , ""II of tho ,oml" of both MI, Bmil md MI, L""toh, PI""tiff
was forced to demote Mr. Worley on December 17, 2003.
I COUNT I
RETALIATION IN VIOLATIONI OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
69. Plaintiff incorporates b� reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as if fully set
forth at length herein. I 70. Defendant violated the IsarbaneS-OXley Aet when it discriminated against
Plaintiff by terminating him because Je had reported a violation or suspccted violation of
law, including but not limited to the Flreign 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
of earnings; loss of career opportunitids; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation
and esteem in the community; and tt loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life,
including the opportunity to pursue thb 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
against Defendant including reinstatJment 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 inelUbing 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
forth at length herein. I 73. Less than one month I before his termination, Plaintiff complained to
I Defendant that Wayne Worley was being discriminated against on the basis of his age.
I 74. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Wayne Worley was being discriminated
against on the basis of his age. I 75. Defendant discharged �Iaintiff.
I 76. Plaintiffs complaint of age discrimination was a motivating factor in
Defendant's decision to discharge Plai�tiff.
77. Defendant's retaliatOry !eonduct was willful.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff resleetfUllY requests that this Court enter judgment
against Defendant including reinstatdment with the same seniority status that Plaintiff 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
other relief as the Court deems approphate 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 respectfully 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 ELCRA
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
interest; compensatory damages inCIUbing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such I
other relief as the Court deems appropriate at the time of final judgment.
1 COUNT V
I 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
perceived handicap. I 93. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Wayne Worley was being discriminated
against on the basis of his record of l physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activitieJ andlor because he was regarded as having such an
impairment..
94. Defendant discharged I:laintiff. i
95. Plaintifrs complaint of handicap discrimination was a significant factor in
Defendant's decision to discharge Plailtiff.
96. As a direct and proxiJatc result of Dcfendant's unlawful actions against
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuribs and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
of earnings; loss of career oPPOrlUnitibs; mental and emotional distress; loss of rcputation
and esteem in the community; and tJc loss of the ordinary plcasures of everyday life,
including the opportunity to pursuc I the gainful occupation of choice. Additionally, i
Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees and costs.
- 15 -
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 16 of 26
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 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
interest; compensatory damages inCIUhing eosts, and reasonable attorney fees; and such
other relief as thc Court deems approP�iate at the time of final judgment.
ICOUNT VI
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY
97. Plaintiff incorporates b l 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. Plaintiff refused to
certain agents, servants, and/or
management levels.
Virlate these policies and reported the actions of
employees of Defendant to Defendant's upper
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
federal seeurities laws, and for rcp1rting the actions of the agents, servants, and/or
employees of Defendant to Defendant's upper management levels.
99. As a direct and proxiJate result of Defendant's unlawful actions against
Plaintiff, PlaintifT has sustained injUrt and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
of earnings; loss of career opportunitiJs; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation
and esteem in the community; and tJe 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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff resfcctfullY 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
interest; compcnsatory damages inCIU6ing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such
other rclicf as the Court deems approphate at the time of final judgmcnt.
Date: Septcmber 28, 2004
EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C.
By:
- 17 -
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
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 18 of 26
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 19 of 26FROM P.3
u.s. EQUAL EN.lPL,OY'l\P:NT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Detroit District Office 477 M!<lllganAvcnue,l<oom 865
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 duel to tqe fact that the information obtained during the
,investigation does not support a'conclusion that the statute(s) complained of haslhave been : vi;�Iat�d. ' . .. I "'
' . .
OnMarch .25,2004, you filed acbarge of discrimination .
The investigation of your charge has revealL the following;
1. The investigation failed to pLduce eviden�e to show that retaliation was the factor of your discharge. In �dition. 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-
2. jurisdictional. ..
3; Due to the evidence provided in this icase it is unlikely that further investigation into this 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 no choice but to dismiss the qharge. Further, .this dismissal does not state that the Respondent was in compliance with the statutes,
. . .
. ,
, .
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 20 of 26-1998 7,53PM FROM
. 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.cti4e in the field of employment discrimination. Please note that the EEOC does not recommend the attorneys nor make any representation regarding their abilities.
Sincerely,
I j � .. p!::. " -' , .. - " ,
P. 1
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 21 of 26
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 22 of 262004 11: 37 AM FR CLARK HILL, 313 9SS 8252 TO 912482589212
VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Sue· Ellen Eisenberg Eisenberg & Bogas, l>.c.
CtARKffiLL , pte
500 Woodward Avenue : 8ui«3500
Detd'l', Michigan 482Z6·J4.1S Td. (313) 965·8.100 r Fax (.>1.» 96;.6252
: www.d.rkhrll.""",
August 26, 2004
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite #145 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
Re: David Bazzetta
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 disputes.
Important to the EDRP i s the concept that if the dispute is not resolved through the frrst 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 supporting 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 in bringing this matter
3326S58vl 167501097415
Vl!tTolt, Michigan. Birmingham., Mlcht�rtn i La.nsing, MicJtigan
P.02
I . ,
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 23 of 262004 11:37 AM FR CLARK HI
Ms. Sue Ellen Eisenberg August 26, 2004 Page 2
to a final resolution through binding arb·itrJltio·o. of an agreement to arbitrate.
8252 TO 912482589212 P.03
PI=o contact me if you wish to discuss tenns
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. BAZZETT A,
Plaintiff,
-v-
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
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
Case No. 0 L/ ,... 7 3 �Co -
Judge Magistrate Judge A VERN COBN.,,.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER
:::;r- A I =7< ... U
-,--
. � J:,;. JURY DEMAND \0
Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by land through his attorneys, hereby demands a jury
trial on all issues so triable.
Date: September 28, 2004
EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C.
By:
- 1 8 -
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
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 25 of 26
JS 44 11/99 CIVIL COVER SHEET COUNTY IN WHICH THIS ACTION AROSE: Oakland ORIGINAL The JS-44 eMI cover shoot and the Information contained hereIn neither replace nor suppleme nt the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as prov[ded by local rules of court. This form, approved by the JudicIal Conference of theOtaWtatas (�ftge�974(j re61!red for use of the Clerk of Court for tha purpose of Initialing the civil docket sheet. ':I:: _ , I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
'
David J. Bazzetta DaimlerChrysler Corporation
(b) County of Residence of First Usted
(C) Marney's (Firm Name. Address. and Telephon<> Number) i. AUomeys (I f Known) {]OJ'-�'L0i.�:-" .ci\�' Sue Ellen Eisenberg (P25530) Kathleen L. Bogus (P25164) :'i \I \\'"\r.,t;: �D Jl\\.,��. � Eisenberg & Bogas PC Suite 145 33 Bloomfield Hills �Atl' �\SlRJ:i I 'E. \Juu7" (} G , ., , l Parkwav. Bloomfield Hills. Ml 48304 (248) 258-5080 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placo an "X" In One Box 00'1) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Pisco an "X"1n One Box for PIalnIIff
~ o 1 U.S, Government � 3 F eral Question Ptalntlff (U.S, Government Not a Party)
o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Defendant (tndlcate CItizenship of Parties
In Itam 111)
IV, NATURE OF SUIT (PlAce nn "X" fn 000 Box Only)
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTRACT 1 1 0 Insumnca 120 Marlne 130 Mil ler Act 140 NegoUablo Instrument 150 Recovery of
Ovorpayment and Enforcemenc of Judgment
151 Medicare Ad 152 Recovery of Defaulted
S1udent l.oons (E)(cI. Veterans)
153 R&cov.tyor OV1tfPllYIOell! of Valeran's Benefits
o 444Weff'are 0 535 Ooolh Penalty D 440 Other CivU Rigllts 0 54() MandarmJS & Olhet
0 550 Civil Rights! 0 555 Prison Condition '
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Be»: for Defendanl) PLA DEF PLA DEF
Clllzon ofThls Slate 01 0 I Incorporated "r Principal Plaes 0 4 of Bus [ness In This Slate
04
Clllzen of Anolh.r 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal of Business 1n Another Stale
05 Os Clllzen or Subject of a 0 03 06 06 3 Foreign Nallon
Fomlan Coun!rv
FORFEITURE/PENALTY nANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 0 610 Agriculture 0 422 Appoal 26 USC 158 Cl 400 Slnls Reapportlonmant 0 620 Other Food &. Drug Cl 41 0 Antitrust 0 625 Drug Related SelzlXe 0 423 WIthdrawal o 430 Banks and Banl<.lng
ofProplrly 21: 861 28 USC 157 Cl 450 CommorcelJCC 0 630 Uquor Laws o 460 Deportallon 0 640 R.R. & Trucil; PROPERTY ruGHTS Cl 470 Rackal .. t Inftusncad & 0 650 A1rtlna Regs. Canupt Organizations 0 660 Occupational 0 820 Copyrights CJ 810 So lechv o SafVico
Safoty/Health 0 630 Patent o 850 s� rl!ie,lCom mod 1!IeV 0 6000thor 0 840 Trademark Excltange
o 875 Customer Challonue LA!lOR SOCIAl. SECURITY 12 USC 3410
0 71 () FalrlAborStandartis 0 861 H IA(' 30.'1) o 891 Agricultural Acts Aol 0 862 Clack Lung (923) o 692 EcooomJc SlabIlilatton Act
o 693 EnWonmenial Mailers 0 720 Lnbor/Mgmt. 0 863 O!WClOIWW (405(g)) Relations o 894 Energy Allocation Ad 0 864 5510 TIlle XVI o 895 Freedom of 0 730 LaborlMamt Reporting CI B65 RSI ('05(g) lnfoonatlon Act & Disclosure � o 900 'ir:�Ic;: Under 0 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL. TAXSUtTS
o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Equal Acetin toJUIUce
0 7DO Other Labor Lltigatofl
0 'rol Empt Ret. loc. SecurllyAcI
or Defendant}
o 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609
CI 9"'...0 Constitutionality 0 r Slale Statutes
CI 890 0Uler 51aMOI)' AcUona
Appeel to District ,.....-v:-e�GlN (PLACE AN''X" IN ONE BOX ONLy)
��I(lal 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from ! 0 4 ��lnstated ProceedJng Stato Court Appellate Court ' Reononod
Transferred from another district 05 (spselfy) o 6 Multi dlstrl cl 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 slalules unless 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 0 CHECK IF THIS ISA CLASS ACTIO COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 .
(See VIII. RELATED CASE(S) Instructions):
IF ANY
DATE
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 26 of 26I .............. ------�-------------------
c """'
��? PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11
1. . Is this a case that has been previously dismissed?
I f yes, give the following information:
Cou� ________________________ -,� ______ _
Case No.: _______________________ -,-________ _
Judge: ________________________ �---------
DYes @
2. 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.)