Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Most of Employee’s Incentive Compensation Claims

Last month, the Ohio Court of Appeals mostly affirmed an employer’s summary judgment in a case where a former employee challenged the amount and payment of his incentive compensation.   Bollman v. Lavery Automotive Sales, 2019-Ohio-3879.  The employee never signed an incentive compensation agreement and, instead, relied on a chart that the employer distributed each year summarizing its compensation plan. The court found that the employer was free to change that chart and incentive plan at will.  Further, the court found that sales commissions do not constitute wages under Ohio’s prompt payment statute.  However, the court agreed with the employee that the employer had been unjustly enriched when it deducted $20/per car more from the bonus pool than it was being charged by GM for its incentive compensation system.


According to the Court’s opinion, the employee was employed at will as a sales consultant.  He was paid a salary plus a commission for every car he sold over 10 each month based on a bonus chart provided by the employer when he was hired.  After 6 years, the employee began participating in a GM incentive program that paid $100/car sold and required the employer to pay $25/car into the bonus pool.   This GM program was in addition to the commissions he received from his employer.  The employer informed its sales staff that it would deduct the GM $25/car charge from their bonus pool.  When GM increased the charge to $30/car, the employer began deducting $50/car from the bonus pool.  When the employees objected, the employer told them that they could resign.   The employee resigned a few years later and brought suit.

The Court rejected the employee’s breach of contract claim based on its deduction of the GM charge from the bonus pool.  The chart did not contain any explicit terms and he conceded that other incentive compensation plans were not documented either.  Further, employee admitted that the employer orally informed him that it would be deducting the GM charge from the bonus pool and that the employer continued to pay his base salary.  The employee objected, but continued to cash his paychecks.   The employer was free to change the compensation plans at will.

The Court also rejected the employee’s claim that the bonus deduction violated Ohio’s prompt wage payment statute: “The per vehicle dealer contribution charges Appellee withheld were deducted from Appellant’s commission. This Court has held the definition of the word “wage” as used in R.C. 4113.15 does not include commissions, which are not guaranteed pay or reimbursement for expenses.”


The Court, however, agreed with the employee that the employer may have been unjustly enriched by deducting $50/car from the bonus pool when GM was only charging it $30/car.

The doctrine of unjust enrichment “applies when a benefit is conferred and it would be inequitable to permit the benefitting party to retain the benefit without compensating the conferring party.” Garb–Ko, Inc. v. Benderson, 10th Dist. No. 12AP–430, 2013–Ohio–1249, ¶ 25 (Citation omitted). The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are: (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant, (2) the defendant knew of the benefit, and (3) it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain the benefit without payment to the plaintiff.

While the Court had no problem with the employer offsetting the amount it was charged by GM from the employee’s sales commissions/bonus pool, it concluded that the employer “was unjustly enriched by deducting amounts which exceeded the per vehicle dealer contribution charge it paid to General Motors . . . “


NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

CEO Without Remedy Under ERISA When Deferred Comp Plan Fails to Comply with 409A

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of state law claims brought by a retired CEO who had been assessed tax penalties on account of deferring large amounts of his compensation under an executive deferred compensation plan without complying with IRC 409A on the grounds that the plan was covered by ERISA which, therefore, pre-empted the state law claims. Wilson v. Safelite Group, Inc. No. 18-3408 (6^th Cir. 7-10-19).  The Court found that deferred compensation plans which permitted distributions during periods of active employment as well as during retirement could still qualify as a pension plan under ERISA.  Further, because the plan permitted the deferral of both bonuses and annual salary, it was not exempt from ERISA under DOL regulations as a bonus plan.


According to the Court’s opinion, the employer created a bonus/incentive plan for five executives if they secured a buyer for the company.  When a likely buyer emerged, the company created a non-qualified deferred compensation plan to help most of those executives avoid adverse tax consequences from the incentive plan bonuses.   Under the deferred compensation plan, the executives could defer their regular annual salary and annual bonuses as well as the incentive bonuses.   The CEO make elections to deter his incentive bonus and large portions of his salary each year under the deferred compensation plan.  The plan’s default deferral provided for the payout to begin shortly after employment ended, but it could also be drawn out over as long as ten years and even permitted withdrawals before employment ended.  The CEO was audited by the IRS in 2014 and it determined that some of the deferrals did not comply with IRC 409A and he was assessed with taxes and penalties.  Two years later, the CEO sued his former employer for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.  The employer moved for partial summary judgment on the grounds that the deferred compensation plan was a pension plan governed by ERISA, which pre-empted the state law claims.  The trial court agreed, but permitted the CEO to amend his complaint to bring claims under ERISA.  The CEO declined and instead appealed the ERISA ruling.   The Sixth Circuit affirmed.


The parties disputed whether the deferred comp plan satisfied the ERISA requirements because it permitted withdrawals before retirement. “In essence, the question is whether a plan that allows for distributions both before and after termination can be an ERISA employee pension benefit plan.” The Court construed the statute to not require withdrawals to begin only after employment had ended:

Subsection (ii) does not specify deferral of income “until termination” or “to termination”; rather, it says “for periods extending to the termination.”  Thus, deferrals may occur for various “periods,” and those periods may last up to and/or beyond termination.  Subsection (ii) covers a wide array of plans and does not exclude plans that give participants the option to receive in-service distributions.

The employer’s deferred compensation plan presumed that distributions would not begin until after termination of employment, but permitted participants to elect earlier distributions.   It also stated that it was governed by ERISA.  As long as the plan provided for distributions after termination of employment, the requirements of ERISA were satisfied.


That being said, the DOL had published a regulation exempting certain deferred compensation plans which did not “systematically” defer the payment of “bonuses.” “By regulation, employee pension benefit plans do not include “payments made by an employer to some or all of its employees as bonuses for work performed, unless such payments are systematically deferred to the termination of covered employment or beyond, or so as to provide retirement income to employees.”  29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-2(c).”  In other words, the payment of a bonus is typically not a retirement program and would not be treated as a pension plan unless the payment of those bonuses were systematically deferred to termination of employment.  “A bonus plan may defer payment of bonuses and remain exempt, “unless such payments are systematically deferred to the termination of covered employment or beyond, or so as to provide retirement income to employees.”  29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-2(c) (emphasis added).”  Thus, deferred bonus compensation plans which do not systematically defer the payment of bonuses to post-employment periods are exempt from ERISA.


The court rejected the application of this exemption because the deferred comp plan did not relate exclusively to the incentive bonuses and also permitted the deferral of annual salary and regular annual bonuses.


NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Franklin County Appeals Court Remands Incentive Compensation Claim and Dismisses Whistleblower and Reverse Discrimination Claims

Last week, a unanimous Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on summary judgment of whistleblower and reverse race discrimination claims, but remanded the highly-compensated plaintiff’s equitable claims for a six-figure profit bonus on the grounds that the written bonus plan was unenforceable to bar his equitable claims because there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew about or had agreed to its terms and because the employer’s “promises” to award a bonus in its unfettered discretion were illusory. Pohmer v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015-Ohio-1229 (3-31-15).  In affirming the dismissal of the race discrimination claim, the Court agreed that the plaintiff had not shown that the defendant employer was unusual in discriminating against the majority, that he was similarly situated to his supervisor, or that the explanation for his termination (violating the employer’s technology policy by inappropriate and personal use of his blackberry and email) was pretextual.  He could not prevail on his whistleblower claim because he could not prove that he had ever made any relevant complaints to his employer in writing and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel additional electronic discovery that was unlikely to reveal additional relevant evidence without exorbitant costs. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had received very favorable performance evaluations for over a decade, the most recent of which was in December 2011.  He had been assured in writing that he would be receiving a 4.5% profit bonus for 2011.  However, in a random review of his text messages and emails, the employer discovered that he had been sending inappropriate sexual-themed emails and messages to his children’s babysitter and co-workers in violation of the employer’s technology code of conduct.  He was soon terminated in mid-January 2012.  A few days later, the employer set the amount of discretionary incentive compensation and awarded bonuses to remaining employees a few weeks later.  The plaintiff filed suit and alleged, among other things, that he was subjected to reverse race discrimination because his supervisor also sent inappropriate emails and was not fired.  Second, he claimed that he had actually been fired in retaliation for reporting to his supervisor that one of the employer’s financial product campaigns was an illegal scam.  However, he could not produce any written evidence that he had ever made such an allegation prior to his termination despite the employer’s production of thousands of pages of emails and texts messages.  He also claimed that he was entitled to his profit bonus since he had earned it prior to his termination.

Incentive Compensation.  The trial court had dismissed his claim for his incentive compensation on the grounds that the employer’s Performance Based Incentive Compensation Plan (PBIC) was a binding implied-in-fact contract, thus barring any equitable claim under the theories of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit.   Pursuant to the terms of the PBIC, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any profit bonus or incentive compensation unless he was still employed on the date when the profit bonus was actually paid.  However, the Court of Appeals found that the PBIC could not be a contract since there was no evidence that the plaintiff even knew about the PBIC, let alone agreed to it.   All that the employer produced was an unsigned plan document and not any communications to the Plaintiff about the PBIC or indication that the Plaintiff’s employment and incentive compensation were subject to the PBIC.  Moreover, to the extent that the PBIC contained any promises, they were illusory (and thus, non-binding) since the employer retained “sole and absolute discretion” as to when, whether, and in what amount to award bonuses.  In contrast, the plaintiff produced evidence of a powerpoint presentation about the incentive compensation he was eligible to earn for that year and an email from his supervisor about the percentage of his profit bonus; neither exhibit made any reference to the PBIC or any requirement that he needed to still be employed on the date that the bonus was paid.

The doctrine of unjust enrichment “applies when a benefit is conferred and it would be inequitable to permit the benefitting party to retain the benefit without compensating the conferring party.” . . . A claim for quantum meruit shares the same essential elements as a claim for unjust enrichment, and both doctrines are equitable doctrines.  . . .  the two doctrines differ, however, when calculating damages.  The damages for unjust enrichment are " ' "the amount the defendant benefited," ' " while the damages for quantum meruit are " ' "the measure of the value of the plaintiff's services, less any damage suffered by the other party." ' "

 . . . 

"A contract is illusory only when by its terms the promisor retains an unlimited right to determine the nature or extent of his performance; the unlimited right, in effect, destroys his promise and thus makes it merely illusory." . . . . In deciding that the PBIC Plan is an illusory contract with respect to [the plaintiff], we do not mean to say that the PBIC Plan would be illusory under all circumstances. This is not a case where [the plaintiff] was made aware of the terms of the PBIC Plan and thereby assented to the PBIC's terms in exchange for his continued employment with JPMC.

Reverse Race Discrimination.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this claim because the Plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie case or show that the employer’s explanation was pretextual.  First, the Court adopted the heightened burden of proof for a reverse race discrimination claim, which requires evidence of “background circumstances supporting the inference that [the defendant employer] was the unusual employer who discriminated against non-minority employees.”  The plaintiff could not meet this burden, although he correctly argued that some courts have questioned the correctness of using a modified burden of proof in any race discrimination claim.    

In any event, the Court found that the Plaintiff did not identify any similarly situated non-white employees who were treated better.   The Plaintiff identified his supervisor for sending inappropriate personal emails because he only received a disciplinary warning, but the Court found him not to be similarly situated “in all respects” (i.e., “ 'all of the relevant aspects of his employment situation were "nearly identical" to those of the [comparable employee's] employment situation.'").  

Thus, to be deemed "similarly situated," "the comparables 'must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it.'

They obviously did not report to the same supervisor.  “[A] supervisor's "position of authority within the company create[s] a meaningful distinction" that "explains [the employer's] different treatment of the two.” More importantly, the employer did not learn of the supervisor’s alleged misconduct until the plaintiff raised it after his termination (presumably during his deposition).  “Other factors may have been at play including a discrepancy in the volume, frequency, and level of inappropriateness contained in the emails of each of the two men.”  

Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiff could not show that his termination for admittedly violating the employer’s code of conduct was pretextual.   He could not “demonstrate that the proffered reason ‘(1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the employer's challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.’"  Importantly, he could not show that the employer knew of any other similar violations of the code of conduct (including that of his supervisor) at the time of the Plaintiff’s termination in January 2012.   

Whistleblowing.  The trial and appellate courts both concluded that the plaintiff could not prevail on his whistleblower claim because he could not satisfy the statutory requirement that the complaint be made in writing to the employer after first making a verbal report.  The employer had produced several thousand pages of documents in discovery, including emails and text messages.  The plaintiff insisted that he had texted and/or emailed his supervisor (in addition to personal conversations) about his objections to the legality of a product campaign.  However, his alleged objections were not reflected in the documents produced in discovery.  Therefore, he could not satisfy his statutory burden of proof under Ohio’s whistleblower statute.   

The Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a forensic examination of his email and text mail boxes to ensure that none of his messages were inappropriately deleted by the defendant employer.  However, the trial court denied that discovery motion on the grounds that it was “unlikely to lead to admissible evidence and disproportionately costly.”  The appellate court found this not to be an abuse of discretion in light of the thousands of pages produced in discovery.  Moreover, it noted that the Plaintiff’s  

argument has less to do with the adequacy of the discovery process and more to do with [his] dissatisfaction that he did not discover sufficient evidence to support his claims. The trial court noted it had made an effort throughout the case "to keep discovery proportionate to the issues, and to sensibly minimize the financial cost and time burden which electronic discovery might otherwise require."

Indeed, the supervisor denied ever receiving such a written report and the Plaintiff failed to mention any written objections about the product campaign in his own deposition.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit: Managers’ Exempt Status Was Destroyed by Employer’s Recoupment of Overpayment of Incentive Bonuses.

Today, a unanimous Sixth Circuit addressed the Fair Labor Standards Act exempt status regulations in a class action lawsuit brought in Columbus alleging that the employer violated the salary basis regulations and owed the Plaintiffs overtime compensation. Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., Nos. 07-4437/4438 (6th Cir. 5/19/09). The Court addressed compensation paid both before and after the revised FLSA regulations were issued by the Department of Labor in August 2004. The Plaintiffs were paid a mix of base salary and incentive bonuses. The Plaintiffs challenged employer policies which permitted the employer to recoup prior overpayments of incentive bonuses from employee salaries and actual deductions made from employee salaries in 2005 to recoup such incentive bonus overpayments. The employer’s compensation plan changed in 2006 to “hold back” 20% of potential incentive bonuses for possible future recoupment. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that the actual deductions for “bonus recoupment” impermissibly reduced the Plaintiffs’ base salaries in 2005 due to the quality or quantity of their work and was not a permissible recoupment of an overpayment or advancement of wages or other compensation.

On July 10, 2007, District Judge Frost “granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding “that the deductions from the salaries of eight Plaintiffs were deductions resulting from ‘variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed,’ in violation of the salary-basis test.” Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, No. 2:06-CV-99, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49777, at *42 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2007) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a)).. . . . In his review of Plaintiffs’ overtime claims, the district court undertook a thorough three-part analysis. First, the district court determined the effect of the” DOL’s August 2004 salary-basis regulations in which “only an “actual practice of making improper deductions demonstrates that the employer did not intend to pay employees on a salary basis.’” Id. at *22 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.603(a)). This meant that Plaintiffs’ claims covering the period of time before August 23, 2004 would be analyzed under the” Supreme Court’s 1997 opinion in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), which held that “the salary-basis test denies exempt status “if there is either an actual practice of making . . . deductions [based on variations in quality or quantity of work performed] or an employment policy that creates a ‘significant likelihood’ of such deductions.” Claims involving pay periods after August 2004 were to be governed by the DOL’s new regulation. Second, the district court determined that the employer did not violate the Auer test. Finally, the district court determined that the deductions from plaintiffs’ salaries in 2005 “specifically related to the quality or quantity of work each Plaintiff had performed” and that the Plaintiffs worked overtime during those pay periods. However, the district court limited Plaintiffs’ recovery to overtime pay for the three pay periods in 2005—the periods ending November 9, November 23, and December 9—during which Life Time Fitness took actual deductions from Plaintiffs’ salaries.” Both sides appealed.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that Auer applied to all pay periods at issue, and instead, agreed with the district court’s decision to apply Auer only to pre-August 2004 pay periods and the “new” DOL regulation to pay periods after August 2004. Nonetheless, the Court reversed the district court’s decision that the employer complied with the Auer test and found that the employer’s pre-August 2004 policies impermissibly subjected the Plaintiffs’ salaries to the risk of deduction. Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision that the employer made impermissible deductions from the employees’ salaries during three pay periods in 2005. Unlike other situations where an employer is permitted to recoup from salary prior advancement of wages or loans to employees,

Life Time Fitness did not provide loans to its employees. To be sure, it did make advance bonus payments. However, to recover overpayments, Life Time Fitness impermissibly dipped into Plaintiffs’ guaranteed salaries. Unlike the situation in both DOL letters [permitting recoupment of wage advances and loans], Life Time Fitness knowingly made salary deductions as part of a pre-designed bonus compensation plan. . . . The deductions were not made to recover irregular salary advances or payments mistakenly made by the payroll department. See id. The plain language of 29 C.F.R. § 541.602 provides, “[s]ubject to the exceptions provided in [section 541.602(b)], an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a). Section 541.602(b) provides, generally, that deductions may be made for absenteeism, sick leave (in certain circumstances), penalties imposed in good faith for infractions of safety rules, unpaid disciplinary suspensions, and, under the DOL letters described above, for mistaken overpayments. But, there is no support for the contention that the FLSA allows for the reduction of guaranteed pay under a purposeful, incentive-driven bonus compensation plan.” (emphasis added).

The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that the incentive bonuses were not based on individual employee performance, but rather, were based on departmental performance, including a number of factors like “her supervisees’ performance, the size and location of a particular club, club-usage volume,” etc. As noted by the district court, “it is strange for Defendant to argue that individual performance was mainly irrelevant to the computation of bonus payments. [Life Time Fitness] offered, after all, that it created the bonus plans ‘[a]s a means for providing incentives for certain of its employees.”

Perhaps if the recoupment deductions had been limited to future bonus payments and had not invaded the employees’ base salaries, the employer would have avoided violating the FLSA.

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0177p-06.pdf

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.