- Wm. Bush & Carrier Corporation vs. Copeland Corporation (1989)
Mr. Bush worked for Copeland Corporation in a sensitive development area. He was recruited away by Carrier to work on a competitive product. Copeland offered several options to Mr. Bush including 150% of salary for two years for Mr. Bush to do nothing or pursue other avenues. Mr. Bush declined and went to Carrier. Copeland won a permanent injection causing Mr. Bush and Carrier to sue. Executive Search, Ltd. was commissioned to determine if Mr. Bush could have been employed in a non-competitive environment at or above his salary and responsibilities at Copeland. Executive Search, Ltd.'s market survey and actual marketing campaign for Mr. Bush confirmed that Mr. Bush could have enhanced his career and income in a non-competitive industry. In addition, Executive Search, Ltd. personnel were deposed by opposing counsel. In settlement prior to trial, Carrier agreed to use Mr. Bush in a non-competitive environment and buy Copeland's product for a period of two years. (Jon Sebaly; Esq.; Sebaly, Shillito & Dyer, Dayton, OH)
- Various vs. NCR Corporation (1989)
Ten junior professionals founded a stock purchase club and as a matter of course bought a small (approx. ten) number of NCR shares. NCR stock then appreciated significantly. The ten were released for insider trading. The ten sued NCR for wrongful discharge. Executive Search, Ltd. was engaged by the Plaintiffs to determine the extent of their damages in income and reputation. Executive Search, Ltd. could find no evidence of damage. Subsequently, within a year, eight were employed elsewhere in better positions and two started a new company. (Jon Sebaly; Esq.; Sebaly, Shillito & Dyer, Dayton, OH)
- Ernst & Young Case (1993, Hamilton County)
Plaintiff joined Arthur Young in 1978 and remained throughout the merger with Ernst and Whitney until April 1991, when, due to the merger and redundancy of management, he was terminated at age 63. Ernst provided severance through August 1991 then bridged Plaintiff's retirement until age 65. Plaintiff sued in 1993 for age discrimination. Executive Search, Ltd. reviewed Plaintiff's documentation and the position ads available circa 1991-92. Also, placement records of three outplacement firms and three other search firms were reviewed. The facts showed that Plaintiff had not expended reasonably diligent effort, and had he done so could have been re-employed in 1991 at a comparable position and salary. (Mike Tate, Price-Waterhouse, Chicago, IL and Wendy Toolin, Ernst & Young, Cleveland, OH)
- Mosbaugh vs. Georgia Power Company (1996)
Mr. Mosbaugh, a general manager with Georgia Power Company (GPC), was released for cause in 1989. Mr. Mosbaugh pursued a wrongful discharge suit through the Department of Labor. The Secretary of Labor (Robert Reich) determined that GPC was guilty. Mosbaugh remained continuously employed through June 1996.
Executive Search, Ltd. was engaged during the damage phase to determine:
a. if Mosbaugh expended reasonable effort that a prudent individual would in this job search
b. if Mosbaugh expended reasonable effort could he have been employed and at what level and income.
Executive Search, Ltd. conducted a market analysis of the ads available circa 1989 through 1995 in various publications to which Mosbaugh had easy access. Also, a salary survey was conducted and an analysis of Mosbaugh's documented efforts. Executive Search, Ltd. determined Mosbaugh had not expended reasonable effort in his search to find suitable employment after being terminated from Georgia Power. The analysis showed that Mosbaugh could have been employed at comparable money within a reasonable time of his termination. Upon release of Executive Search, Ltd.'s study, Mosbaugh then moved to settle within three months of the hearing after seven years of refusing to do so. (John Lamberski, Esq.; Troutman, Sanders, LLP; Atlanta, GA)
- Brooks vs. Martin Marietta Energy Services (MMES), 1996)
Brooks was discharged by MMES in 1994 for incompetence. Brooks pursued a wrongful discharge suit including lost wages and damages. Executive Search, Ltd. was engaged to review Brooks' efforts to determine reasonable diligence in Brooks' pursuit of a new position. Brook's records documentation and deposition was analyzed. Executive Search, Ltd. concluded Brooks expended a significant effort in responding to what appeared to be appropriate ads in his search for a new position. No further action on Executive Search, Ltd.'s part was required. (Richard Miller, Esq.; Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease; Columbus, OH)
- Marvin B. Hobby vs. Georgia Power Company (GPC), (1996, 1997)
Hobby, terminated by Georgia Power in 1980, filed a whistle-blower, wrongful discharge suit with the Department of Labor. While he lost his action against Georgia Power, the decision was overruled by Robert Reich, then Secretary of Labor, in 1993.
Executive Search, Ltd. was contacted in 1996 and asked to assist in the damage phase of the suit. We identified and documented more than a thousand appropriate positions from classified advertisements which Mr. Hobby should have responded to during 1990 - 1993. This evaluation documented Hobby's job search effort to be less than 5% of the effort a prudent job seeker would have undertaken. A salary survey was done which documented Hobby's ability to obtain a new position at a comparable salary.
A "strawman" was marketed into the current job market of 100 companies with positive results. 18 businesses said they would be interested in someone like Mr. Hobby and eight said they were currently in need of applicants with a similar background.
Executive Search, Ltd. was one of only two expert witnesses used in this high profile lawsuit, which involved depositions and testimony in Washington DC before the Department of Labor. (John Lamberski, Esq., James Joiner, Esq., Troutman, Sanders, LLP, Atlanta, GA.)