Franklin County Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Reliance on Error in Emailed Negotiations

Earlier this month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on an employee’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims based on emailed negotiations over her severance pay when the emails contemplated a final, signed agreement which was never executed by the parties.  Watson v. Franklin University, 2019-Ohio-2929.  The plaintiff requested 18 months instead of the offered 6 months of severance pay and the employer initially appeared to agree in an email, which was corrected later that same afternoon to change the date from 2014 from 2015.  Because the plaintiff sought 18 months of severance pay, this implicated the statute of frauds because performance would last more than one year and the requirement for a signed agreement could not be satisfied through promissory estoppel.  Further, the plaintiff could not show justifiable reliance on an email which agreed to the 18 months of severance when the email was corrected later that same afternoon to change the date from 2015 to 2014 and the parties never signed a formal severance agreement.  There was no evidence that she relied on the morning email to her detriment by rejecting job offers in reliance on the morning email before it was corrected.  Accordingly, she could not prove a valid claim for promissory estoppel.


According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired in 2011 and was notified that her job was being eliminated and her employment terminated on November 13, 2013.  She was offered 6 months of severance, contingent on signing an agreement and release of claims and on a reduction in the severance pay if and when she obtained other employment. She had previously negotiated a severance agreement in connection with a prior job and had retained an attorney to advise her.   She countered a couple of weeks later requesting 18 months of severance that would not be reduced if and when she obtained another job.  After speaking with the employer on December 3, the employer emailed her that same morning confirming their conversation about severance pay through May 2015 without being reduced by other employment. A formal agreement was to follow with the new terms.   Later that same afternoon, the employer emailed her to explain that it had misread the dates and that it was only willing to pay severance through May 2014 – i.e., six months.   It sent her the formal agreement to sign, but she refused to sign it because it only promised six months of severance pay. 

She brought suit for claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and promissory estoppel.  The trial court granted summary judgment on the first two claims prior to discovery and on the promissory estoppel claim after discovery.   She appealed.


The Court agreed that the statute of frauds applied to an agreement to make installment payments for more than a year and would have applied to the parties’ severance pay agreement.   The plaintiff attempted to argue that the emails exchanged discussing the terms of the severance agreement satisfied the statute of frauds and indicated the employer’s initial agreement with her demand.  However, “that e-mails purporting to reference an agreement or some aspect of an agreement are not sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement for a signed agreement as provided for in R.C. 1335.05.”  Further, the emails reflected that both parties anticipated the signing of a formal agreement and were not relying on the emails as the contract. “Where the evidence establishes that it was the expectation of all parties that no meeting of the minds would occur absent a final written agreement signed by all the parties, no party can base a legal claim on communications or correspondence that comprise the interim negotiations.”   This is particularly true when the negotiating parties are sophisticated in terms of education, experience and advice of counsel.  Finally, the Court refused to use promissory estoppel to satisfy the statute of frauds.


The Court also affirmed dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim on the basis that she could not show that she  reasonably relied or detrimentally relied on the employer’s morning email appearing to agree to the 18 months of severance.  In order to prove a promissory estoppel claim, the plaintiff must show, among other things, that she relied to her detriment on the false promise and that her reliance was reasonable.  In this case, however, “'[i]f a written agreement is contemplated, reliance upon statements made before an agreement is signed will be unreasonable as a matter of law, particularly when sophisticated business parties are involved in the negotiations.”  In light of her experience, she was considered to be a sophisticated party.  Further, the evidence showed that the plaintiff never changed her position, let alone relied to her detriment, on the morning email appearing to agree to the 18 months of severance before that misunderstanding was clarified in writing in the afternoon.


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.

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.

Sixth Circuit Examines The Last Man Standing

 Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on a breach of contract claim brought by its former CEO and award of prevailing party attorney’s fees on the grounds that it was ambiguous – and thus a jury question – whether the CEO’s comment that employees should not be the “last man standing” breached his employment agreement to not solicit employees to resign their employment.  Slinger v. Pendaform Co., No. 18-6187 (7-11-19).   The employer’s honest belief and reliance on a non-discriminatory reason for terminating the CEO is insufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment for breach of contract when the CEO plausibly proved that the employer’s explanation was simply pretext to avoid paying severance pay.   When it comes to evaluating breach of contract claim, intent and good faith is generally irrelevant unless the contract contains a clause making it relevant.  In other words, breaching a contract is a strict liability issue that cannot be avoiding by claiming a good reason or good faith.


According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant company was acquired by a company which was not a fan of the CEO’s performance.   He was directed to simply respond to emails and to forward emails he received.  Because he had an employment agreement that required severance pay if he was terminated without cause, the acquiring company intended to simply let his employment agreement expire naturally so that he would not be entitled to severance pay.   However, the agreement did not require severance pay if he was fired for cause (which included gross misconduct, fraud, felony or insubordination).  The agreement also contained a provision prohibiting him from soliciting employees to resign their employment.    As sometimes happens, the acquiring company began laying off employees.  During this period, the CEO visited one of the Ohio plants to retrieve the personal items he had left there and chatted with some employees about the future of the company.   Apparently, he said something to the effect that they should not be the last man standing.  Some employees did not think much of his comments, but others were alarmed and reported the comment to new management.   Within two minutes of learning of the comments, the new company president emailed that the CEO should be fired.  The CEO was then quickly fired for “gross misconduct” by soliciting employees to resign in violation of his employment agreement.   When he brought suit for his severance pay, the trial court granted summary judgment to the employer and awarded it over $188K in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under the agreement.  The CEO appealed and the Sixth Circuit reversed.


The Court criticized the trial court’s weighing of the evidence at the summary judgment stage of the litigation.  The trial court seemed to be relying on the honest belief rule and reliance on a legitimate business reason instead of construing the evidence in favor of the party opposing summary judgment as required by the rules of civil procedure.    The Court found that Wisconsin law – which governed the agreement –and the employment agreement do not recognize a good faith defense to breach of contract.   While the contract could have created a good faith belief defense for the employer (and some contracts do), this one did not.   Therefore, the employer’s subjective belief as to whether the CEO had engaged in gross misconduct was insufficient evidence to avoid a jury question on a material dispute of fact as to whether the CEO’s comment breached the agreement.  


While the parties did not materially dispute what the CEO said, they disputed what he meant and was understood by his comment:

What his words meant is disputed.  The gloss that one puts on the interaction is the nub of this case.  In the company’s telling of the tale, Slinger deliberately approached every employee to deliver the same missive of impending doom, disrupting the workplace by soliciting employees to leave.  In Slinger’s version, he was approached by employees nervous about their job security after the merger and told them kindly to look after themselves.  And indeed, some employees took his comments as a friendly goodbye, while others feared for their jobs.  The District Court ignored these differences in simply stating that “five employees stated Plaintiff’s comment concerned them and believed they should find other employment.”  2018 WL 3708023, at *7.  That statement fails to summarize all of the evidence.  “A study of the record in this light leads us to believe that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible.”

In contrast, the CEO asserted that the company’s explanation was simply pretext to terminate him without severance pay.  He put forward a compelling case:  The purchase agreement noted next to his name “no severance.”   The decision to terminate him was made within two minutes.  In addition, the Company suggested that it fired him for gross misconduct and then changed it to breach of the non-solicitation clause.   Moreover, the employment agreement did not define “solicit.”

What Slinger said is not disputed, but the import and meaning of his words in context is disputed.  Each party’s characterization of the same events is plausible and is linked to specific evidentiary support.  Given that the term “solicit” is susceptible to two reasonable, competing interpretations, summary judgment here was improper.

Because there could be different inferences drawn from the evidence whether the CEO was fired for cause or simply to avoid paying severance pay, the jury was entitled to hear the evidence and decide whether the agreement had been breached.  Accordingly, the attorney’s fee award was also vacated.  One can wonder if there is too much water under the bridge for the parties to settle in light of the expense of this litigation.

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.

Workplace Investigation Cannot Be Both Sword and Shield

Last week, the Portage County Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing the confidentiality of workplace investigation notes, reports, recommendations and recordings of witness interviews when the employer’s attorney conducted the investigation and interviews.  Smith v. Technology House, Ltd., 2019-Ohio-2670.   The defendant employer had broadly asserted its Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense of taking prompt remedial action, but had not specifically cited to its attorney’s investigation as the basis for that defense.  Nonetheless, the trial court found that the interview recordings, report and recommendations should be produced in discovery.  The Court of Appeals reversed in part on the grounds that the employer had not specifically waived attorney-client privilege or yet asserted that the investigation was the basis for its defense, but held that the recording of the plaintiff’s interview must be produced because she was clearly adverse to the employer at the time and had her own attorney.  It also ordered an in camera inspection of the investigation materials to determine what else may be outside privilege and work product protection because it predated the investigation, etc.  Finally, it noted that privilege may not be used as both a sword (i.e., defense) and shield (confidential). 


According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff alleged that she complained about sexual harassment.  The employer, fearing litigation, immediately retained counsel to conduct an investigation, which began the following day.  When the plaintiff was brought into a room with the company’s attorney, she left the room to contact her attorney and then informed the employer’s attorney that she was represented.  He still interviewed her, a few managers and a few hourly employees.  All of the interviews were apparently recorded.  When litigation commenced, the plaintiff sought during discovery a copy of the interview recordings of her and her non-supervisory co-workers as well as any notes and documents related to those interviews.  The employer responded that the information was protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege.   The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, but the discovery order was broader than the request in that it ordered the production of all recordings and documents related to the investigation.  The defendant was also ordered to correct its discovery responses to identify the attorney who conducted the investigation.   The employer appealed the discovery order.


The employer pointed out that the Ohio Supreme Court has found workplace investigations by attorneys to be covered by the attorney-client privilege.   Therefore, the trial court’s broad order compelled the production of materials that were protected by privilege.   Nonetheless, the Court found that not everything related to the investigation was privileged.  “Documents and records whose existence preceded a factual investigation or were created independent of such investigation, i.e., independent of any communication between attorney and client, would not be protected by the attorney client privilege.”


“Also, the identity of persons who participated in the investigation is not covered by the privilege.”  Therefore, the attorney’s participation in the investigation is not confidential.

Further, the recording of the interview with the plaintiff was not protected by privilege because she was, by then, an adverse party with her own attorney.

Finally, the attorney-client privilege does not protect the recording of the interview with Smith as this interview may not properly be said to have occurred within the context of the attorney-client relationship.  In the case of a corporate client, Ohio cases have generally held that the privilege extends to communications between counsel and employees of the corporate client.  . . . In light of the foregoing, Technology House could not reasonably expect that the substance of the interview would have the character of a confidential communication between an attorney and client which underlies the reason for the privilege.  At the time of Smith’s interview, a de facto adversarial relationship existed between the parties and, therefore, the substance of that interview falls outside the scope of the privilege.

The Court also found that the attorney’s assessment and materials about the plaintiff’s interview would be protected as work product.   However, the application of privilege or work product to a particular document requires an analysis of the particular document and that was not possible on the current record because the employer failed to provide or produce a privilege log describing the documents being withheld as privileged and work product.

Upon remand, the trial court of necessity must either conduct an in camera review of the compelled discovery to determine whether the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine exempts them from discovery or require the production of description of the documents sufficient to make such a determination, noting that the following types of materials are not privileged: documents and records whose existence preceded Attorney Thompson’s factual investigation or were created independent of that investigation (supra at ¶ 24); the identity of persons who participated in the investigation (supra at ¶ 25); and any recordings or transcripts of the substance of the interview with [the plaintiff].

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion of waiver as premature on the current record.  The plaintiff argued that the employer’s assertion of its Faragher/Ellerth defense waived privilege and work product protection for the investigation. 

Although no Ohio court has adopted this position, it has been held in other jurisdictions that the assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth defense effects a waiver of any privilege attaching to a party’s investigation of the alleged harassment.  “When an employer puts the reasonableness of an internal investigation at issue by asserting the Faragher/Ellerth defense, the employer waives any privilege that might otherwise apply to documents concerning that investigation,” including “‘not only the [investigative] report itself, but [ ] all documents, witness interviews, notes and memoranda created as part of and in furtherance of the investigation.” . . . .

The issue of whether Technology House and Gear waived the privilege attaching to Attorney Thompson’s investigation by asserting a Faragher/Ellerth defense may be resolved by recourse to “[o]rdinary waiver principles” and the “animating maxim that the privilege cannot ‘be used as both sword and shield.’”  In re Itron, Inc., 883 F.3d 553, 558 (5th Cir.2018).  That is: “when a party entitled to claim the attorney-client privilege uses confidential information against his adversary (the sword), he implicitly waives its use protectively (the shield) under that privilege.”  (Citation omitted.)  Id.  

Accordingly, courts do not find a waiver of privilege unless a party indicates its reliance  on a particular investigation in its assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth defense.  The “clear majority view” is that the defense must be “premised, in whole * * * or [in] part, on the results of an * * * investigation.”  . .  . . “This holding aligns with the numerous cases across jurisdictions finding waiver ‘when a client asserts reliance on an attorney’s advice as an element of a claim or defense,’ * * * and the many dozens of cases finding no waiver when no such reliance has occurred.”

In the present case, Technology House and Gear’s assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth defense does not acknowledge the existence of much less indicate reliance upon Attorney Thompson’s investigation.  The mere assertion that they exercised “reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any alleged sexually harassing behavior” does not constitute a waiver of any privilege applicable to the investigation.

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.

OWBPA Exhibits Are Admissible to Challenge Whether Plaintiff Was Terminated as Part of RIF or as Pretext

Last month, the Summit County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on an FMLA retaliation claims because the trial court had not considered the attachments to separation agreements (required by the OWBPA) showing the number of employees selected for a reduction in force and severance pay to impeach the employer’s explanation for the plaintiff’s termination.  Kane v. Inpatient Med. Servs., Inc., 2019-Ohio-1975.  The plaintiff argued that the employer’s failure to include her on one of the exhibits shows that she was not actually terminated as part of the reduction in force, but the trial court excluded the exhibit as evidence of a compromise.  The court of appeals held that Rule 408 only bars such evidence to impute liability and its amount, and not to impeach a witness.  The Court, however, agreed that the plaintiff’s jury trial waiver was valid.


According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant employer purchased the company for which the plaintiff had worked for two years as a regional vice president shortly before she began maternity leave. The plaintiff was terminated when she returned from her second maternity leave and was told that her position had been eliminated as part of a reduction in force.  She filed suit alleging FMLA interference and retaliation and the trial court granted summary judgment to the employer.  The trial court refused to consider two exhibits which the plaintiff had submitted in an attempt to show that the employer’s stated explanation was pretextual.   The first was an unsigned separation agreement which contained the exhibits required under the Older Worker Benefit Protection act reflecting the lay off of only 14 Indiana employees of company acquired by the employer and which did not include the plaintiff.  The second was the same exhibit from a different separation agreement which reflected that only she and the company president had been laid off.   Both of these, she claimed, conflicted with the employer’s answers to interrogatories that 15-20 employees had been laid off and from which entities had been laid off in the reduction in force. The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to consider these exhibits.


Ohio Rule of Evidence 408 prohibits the consideration of offers of compromise to show either liability or the amount of liability.  The rule further provides that:

Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Because the plaintiff was not attempting to use the exhibits to show liability or the amount of liability, the exhibits were admissible to impeach the employer’s explanation for her termination as required to show that its explanation was pretextual. 


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.