Bazzetta v. Daimler AG - Complaint

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

JUDGE : Cohn, Avern DECK : S. Division Civil Deck DArE : 09/28/2004 @ 16: 38:43

CASE NUMBER: 2:04CV73B06 ClIP BAZZETTA V. DAIIILERCHRYSLER

(DA)

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by and through his attorneys,

Eisenberg & Bogas, P.C., and states as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

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

(Sarbanes-Oxley); 29 U.S.C. § 626(c) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); 42

U.S.C. § 12117(a) (Americans with Disabilities Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question , .

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

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 2 of 26

Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law

claims of retaliation in violation of thei Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.2101, I

et seq. and the Miehigan Handieappersj Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.1101 and retaliatory

discharge in violation of public policy. I I

2. Plaintiff is a eitizen of �le Unites States and resides in Macomb County,

Michigan.

3. Defendant DaimlerChryslcr Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its

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

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

DaimlcrChryslcr AG, a German corpoJation.

5. DaimlerChrysler AG, Js an international company that is listed on the

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

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

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

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

meaning o[the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. i 7. DaimlerChrysler corp. llso is a contractor of Daimler Chrysler AG within

the meaning of the Sarbanes-Oxley Ae�. 8. The discriminatory e�PIOyment practices alleged m this Complaint

occurred within the State of Michigan .I !

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

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

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

- 2-


violation of the Elliott-Larsen Rights Act ("ELCRA"), and the Michigan

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

I O. Defendant is an employer and Plaintiff was its employee within the I

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

11. On or about January 14 1 2004, Plaintiff was terminated from his position

with Defendant.

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

Oxley with the Occupational safctJ and Health Administration ("OSHA") of the

Department of Labor. l 13. In accordance with 18 i .S.C. § 1514A(b)(I)(B), the 180 day period in

which OSHA was to issue a final deeiion elapsed on September 18, 2004. OSHA has I

not issued a final decision and Plaintif1· has the right to proceed in the appropriate district

court oCthe United States.

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

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") a fharge of retaliation in violation of the ADEA and

ADA, which was within 300 days of the commission of the unlawful employment

practices alleged in this claim.

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

filed this complaint within 90 days of rbeeiVing his notice of rights. Exhibit A. . I

16. Defendant has waived rn writing any requirement that Plaintiff exhaust

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

Exhibit B.

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

- 3 -


costs.

ST OF FACTS

18. Plaintiff was hired by pefendarlt's predecessor, Chrysler Corp., in May

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

19.

20.

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

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

as Director of Corporate and Product Analysis in the Product Development

Finance Group at DaimlerChrysler ("DCC").

21. From March 2001 to 2002, Plaintiff held the position of Director of

Manufacturing, Procurement & and Research & Development Audit, in the

Corpol"dte Audit Department. was placed in this position by Mr. James Donlon

then-Senior Vice President and at DCC. Mr. Donlon instructed Plaintiff to

"shake t11ings up in the Audit because Mr. Donlon as Controller, was deeply

concerned the Corporate Audit become complacent about its mission and

responsibilities and was "cozy" witll the departments that it was auditing.

22. In the first meeting Mr. Chuck Struve the VP of Corporate Audit,

Plaintiff was told by Mr. Struve that was not the first choice of available candidates to

join the Audit group.

23. In July 2001, during a Audit Executive Committee meeting in

Stuttgart, Germany, Plaintiff learned that business units within DaimlerChrysler AG

continued to maintain secret bank aec;ounts to bribe foreign government officials even

though the company knew and that the practice was illcgal under Unitcd

States securities laws.

- 4 -


24. During the discussion, flubertus Buderath, Vice President of Corporate

Audit (Stuttgart) for DaimlerChryslcr hG made a prescntation. Mr. Budcrath reported I

that he had just returned from a trip to South America whcrc he had met with the CEO of I

the Mercedcs Benz Busincss Unit. fv:!r. Buderath further explained that a common

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

of secret bank accounts to bribe government officials (i.e., a ecrtain amount was

withhcld/deductcd from thc gross proc6eds from the sale of each Mercedes vehicle at the

Business Unit and deposited in a local Jank account). I

25. More specifically, Mr. Buderath stated that: (1) he had briefed the then-

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

the fact that forty (40) accounts of this lature still existed; and (2) Dr. Manfred Gentz, the :

CFO of DCAG, was aware of this practice and that the dollars represented by these !

accounts were "buried" deep in DCAGis balance sheet.

26. Mr. Buderath further stlted that the company planned to wind-down this

practice (acknowledging that it violdted SEC regulations) with the caveats that the

remaining forty accounts continued to 1xist world-wide and that these accounts would be

difficult to eliminate because the chief:executives of the Business Units not only favored

this practice but believed it a necessaryi cost of doing business. I

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

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

Corporate Audit, Charles Struve, whJ also was Plaintiffs immediate supervisor at the

timo.

28. I��'" of �,re�;"g loo�= obo", th" Hlogal ,=tioo. M,. StMO

I - 5 -


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 -


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-


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-


"''' 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 .,.


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-


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-


COUNT II

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA


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-


.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 -


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-


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 .


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 -


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-


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 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

David Bazzctta 48757 Elmhurst �omb,�I48044

RE;. Bazzetta vs, Daimler Clnysler Charge No; 230-A4-013S7

Dear Mr. Bazzetta:

une 30. 2004

P,IfOjI, MI48226-!I704 (313) 226-4600

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

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 22 of 262004 11: 37 AM FR CLARK HILL, 313 9SS 8252 TO 912482589212

WiII!:>m G. Aslm.ids, Jr. (13) 965·8880 [email protected]

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 **


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


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

160 SlockhoIdm's' Sulls 100 OlherConlract 195 Contract Product UabiUly

REAL PROPERTY

210 Land Condemnation 220 Forocfosuro

lar{.. 230 Re nt !.eas. & Ej\tC1ma 240Tortl to Land

245 Tort Produ ct LIability 290 All Other Reef Prnpeny

TORTS PERSONAl. INJURY Pi!RSONAL INJURY

o 31 0 Afrplane 0 362 Personal lnJury-CJ 315Alrplane Product Moo. Ma lpracUce

liability 0 3135 /Jr':.'8.%l'WM@'-0 320 Assault Libel

And Stander 0 368 Asbestos Personal In;ury Product

0 330 Federal Employe,.' Uability U._

0 :l4O Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 345 Marino Product o 370 Other Fraud

Uabillty o 371 Truth In Lending 0 350 Motor Vehlcla o 380 Other PSf'S{lnal 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage

Product Liability 0 3S5 Property Damage 0 360 Olher Personal

lnjury Product Ua?lIIty

CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETIT IONS ��Vo!lng, 0 51 0 Motions to Vacale 1M 42 Employment Sentence :

443 Housing! Habeas Corpus:' AccommodaUoo. 0 530 Geneml '

o 444Weff'are 0 535 Ooolh Penalty D 440 Other CivU Rigllts 0 54() MandarmJS & Olhet

0 550 Civil Rights! 0 555 Prison Condition '

(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.)

If yes, give the following information:

court: ______________________ � ________ __

Case No.: ___________________ -'-_________ _

Judge: ____________ .;..-___ _

Notes: -

," " ,

-------- ----------_._--------+---- -----_._._------------------- _._---

Documents

Bazzetta v. Daimler AG - Complaint