"The price of justice is eternal publicity." Arnold Bennett
| Sample of court documents |
Note:
* The following are summary of some of the civil labor cases filed against Intel Corporation.
* All attorneys listed here are plaintiff's attorneys.
Cases
Filed: 8/6/91 Thirteenth Judicial District Ct.
Plaintiff: Barszcz, Matthew Attorney: Claud Eugene Vance
Defendant(s): Intel Corp., Benjamin Harry, Case No.: SD-91-261-CV
Linda Nardone, William Lemken, Mylan Geisart
COA: Breach of the Covenant of GFFD, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, False Imprisonment, Defamation, Privacy, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Interference with Employment Relations.
Employment Date(s): On or About 1983 - 6/88
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): Defendants interrogated plaintiff, on or about 9/26/90 regarding procedures he used for transportation of computer equipment and tried to elicit a confession from plaintiff for acts he did not commit. Plaintiff was suspended and sent home. Unknown to plaintiff, defendants then conducted a search of his work area and discovered powdered aspirin known as "BC Powder", still in its original packaging. Defendant Harry falsely told plaintiff to return to work because the problem had been resolved. Upon return on the premises plaintiff was immediately detained for approximately one and one-half hours by defendants and police officers who were waiting. Security personnel and other uniformed police officers were also led into the room and observed by plaintiff’s co-workers. Defendants did not inform plaintiff that the police had determined no controlled substances were involved. Defendant Harry called plaintiff to have him return to work where upon plaintiff was terminated.
Disposition: Dismissal
11/1/91 both parties agreed to dismissal.
(When a dismissal is filed either by plaintiff's attorney or by plaintiff's and defendant's attorney, it usually means that cass settled out of court.)
Filed: 11/28/94 Thirteenth Judicial District Ct.
Plaintiff: Owen, James A. Attorney: Debbie McCallister
Defendant(s): Intel Corp., Luther Disney, Case No.: SD 94-408-CV
Tom Hogue, Bill Sheppard, Al Stone
COA: Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Tortious Interference with Business Relations, Defamation, Prima Facie Tort
Employment Date(s): On or About 12/8/91 -11/3/94
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): In 7/93, without justification defendant Disney told plaintiff he intended to remove him from his position, reduce his pay grade level and reassign him. Plaintiff protested and requested a meeting with the vice president of the division who advised him to make sure he had enough work to justify his grade level. In 8/93 defendant Sheppard replaced plaintiff and joined Disney and Hogue in their efforts to eliminate plaintiff. Defendants while assuring plaintiff he had not failed, took away the bulk of his duties and ignored his proposals for additional duties. This left plaintiff unable to perform his role and subjected him to unfair and biased evaluations. Defendant Disney refused to let plaintiff transfer to another site requiring that he resolve his job scope and grade level issues in New Mexico. Defendants also published false statements regarding plaintiff’s job performance to other participants of ranking and rating.
Disposition: Dismissal
8/29/95 joint motion for dismissal made due to settlement of the case, with each party paying their own costs.
Filed: 4/18/94 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Jones, James S. Attorney: Robin W. Allen,
Defendant(s): Intel Corp., Devra Johnson Robert P. Henk
Case No.: 540110
COA: Breach of Contract(Oral, Implied-in-Fact, Written), Breach of Covenant of GFFD, Wrongful Termination/Bad Faith and Unlawful Discharge, Discrimination (Physical Handicap, Race/ National Origin), Intentional / Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Employment Date(s): On or About 6/4/84 - 9/30/93
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): In violation of defendant’s procedural protections for the benefit of employees and without cause plaintiff was terminated while recuperating from back surgery. Termination was pretextual and in retaliation for his taking time off from work due to this medical condition. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleges the purpose and intent of discriminatory actions and termination was based also on his race and national origin.
Disposition: Case was settled out of court.
Filed: 7/27/90 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Jones, Debra Denise Attorney: Frank E. Mayo
Defendant(s): Intel Corp. Case No.: 703204
COA: Wrongful Termination, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of GFFD
Employment Date(s): On or About 7/5/88 - 11/2/89
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): Plaintiff alleges employment termination pretextual and in retaliation for her protestation and report of sexual harassment and molestation by manager on 11/1/89.
Disposition:
12/26/95 dismissal filed by plaintiff ‘s and defendant’s attorneys.
(When a dismissal is filed either by plaintiff's attorney or by plaintiff's and defendant's attorney, it usually means that cass settled out of court.)
Filed: 3/9/92 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Handel, William D. Attorney: Greg L Kays, Esq.
Defendant(s): Intel Corp., Curt Nichols Case No.: 719434
COA: Age Discrimination, Breach of Contract
Employment Date(s): On or About 9/79 - 3/85 and 4/86 - 12/91
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): During the last 12 months of employment defendant Nichols subjected plaintiff to performance evaluations not a true or fair review and ranked him substantially below his true level of performance. Plaintiff was notified in 10/91 that he would be terminated on 12/31/91. His repeated notifications to defendants of the erroneous nature of his performance evaluations were ignored. Plaintiff, 42 years old, alleges the purpose and intent was termination based on his age.
Disposition: Confidential Settlement
4/22/94 dismissal filed.
(When a dismissal is filed either by plaintiff's attorney or by plaintiff's and defendant's attorney, it usually means that cass settled out of court.)
Filed: 12/31/92 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Gregor, Henry Attorney: Gregg L Kays, Esq.
Defendant(s): Intel Corp., Curt Nichols Case No.: 727688
COA: Age Discrimination, Breach of Contract
Employment Date(s): On or About 3/17/80 - 12/31/91
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): Within the last 12 months of employment defendant Nichols subjected plaintiff to performance evaluations not a true or fair review and ranked him substantially below his true level of performance. Plaintiff was notified in 10/91 that he would be terminated on 12/31/91. Plaintiff learned that two younger, less qualified and less experienced employees, also subject to termination on 12/31/91 were offered other positions. Plaintiff, although qualified was not allowed to interview and was told that defendant Nichols made the decision regarding the two open positions. Plaintiff, 54 years old, alleges the purpose and intent was termination based on his age.
Disposition: Removal
2/5/93 notice of removal to U.S. District Court.
Filed: 1/15/93 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Benjamini, Eddi Attorney: Michael J. Korda
Defendant(s): Intel Corp. Case No.: 728046
COA: Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of GFFD
Employment Date(s): On or About 11/76 - 8/19/92
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): In 10/91 both the Division Manager and plaintiff’s immediate supervisor personally reprimanded him, shortly after they had been reprimanded by Intel’s vice-president for the behavior of employees at the National Quality Month Celebration. Plaintiff had been in charge of preparing the celebration. At his following performance review he was subjected to an evaluation not a fair or true reflection of his performance. For the first time in his 15 year employment plaintiff received an "IR" and a CAP. A mid-term evaluation by plaintiff’s immediate supervisor showed successful completion of one task and an acceptable start to the final task which was due in approximately 30 days. The majority of the final task required completion before assessment could be made. Less than 2 weeks later plaintiff was notified of the decision to terminate him because his immediate supervisor did not believe plaintiff would be able to meet the requirements of the CAP.
Disposition: Jury Trial
Damages awarded to plaintiff for breach of contract.
Filed: 12/30/94 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Anonymous Attorney: Kathleen M. Lucas
Defendant(s): Intel Corp.
Case No.: CV746365
COA: Discrimination (Race, Sex) Retaliation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of GFFD, Labor Code Violation 970
Employment Date(s): On or About 8/93 - ?
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): Defendant recruited plaintiff while she was a candidate for MBA from a highly prestigious university. She interviewed for an entry level management position with the division of her choice and was seeking a permanent position. To induce her to accept employment it was suggested that she participate in a program created and specifically designed to provide management experience for recent MBA graduates having significant work experience. The program consisted of 3 rotations, each 4-6 months in length. She was told that the program would serve as an entry into a permanent position in the division of her choice. Defendant also offered her an incentive package and promised her all training could be done in the division and/or department of her choice, she would have suitable positions, evaluations after each rotation, a mentor and she was being hired for a long-term permanent career with defendant. Plaintiff alleges these were false representations made by defendant for the purpose of inducing her to move to California. In addition, the manager of the second rotation stated he had difficulty working with plaintiff due to her race. He subjected her to different standards, ignored, excluded, refused to communicate with her, etc.. Plaintiff was therefore not afforded an opportunity to participate fully in the program as other similarly situated persons were allowed to do. The manager retaliated against plaintiff when she reported her unfair treatment and made a formal complaint. He would not recommend her for a permanent position and threatened to report her as a "problem employee". Complaints were filed with DFEH. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleges the purpose and intent of the discrimination was based on her race and sex. A jury trial was requested.
Disposition: Dismissal
8/30/95 parties agree to mediate matter.
2/22/96 continuation of mediation status signed, in lieu of case management conference
Court ordered mediation be completed before mediation status conference scheduled for 4/25/96 10:30 A.M., Dept. 4
4/22/96 dismissal filed by plaintiff’s attorney.
(When a dismissal is filed either by plaintiff's attorney or by plaintiff's and defendant's attorney, it usually means that cass settled out of court.)
Filed: 6/13/95 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Truong, Nam Attorney: Michael J. Kelly, Esq.
Defendant(s): Intel Corp., Paul Herring, Case No.: CV738294
Steven Kastner
COA: Wrongful Discharge (Public Policy Violation), Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Breach of Contract, Implied Covenant of GFFD, Discrimination and Harassment based on Race, National Origin or Ancestry
Employment Date(s): For About 15 years, until 6/14/93
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): Defendant Kastner, plaintiff’s manager required him to work approximately 841/2 hours a week from 2/92 until 6/92. In 2/92, in addition to his duties on swing shift plaintiff was required to add managerial duties on the day shift. By 3/20/92 plaintiff was required to replace a terminated employee. Plaintiff was also required to attend meetings on his only day off. His work schedule during this period was Mon - 3:00PM -5:00PM, Tues-Thurs 6:30AM-10:00PM, Fri-Sun 8:00AM-8:00PM. Plaintiff collapsed at work on 3/25/92 and 4/12/92, due to exhaustion. Defendant ignored plaintiff’s and his physician’s statements regarding health concerns and need for a reduced work schedule of not more than 40 hours per week. Beginning in 1/93 plaintiff was subjected to derogatory remarks from his new manager, defendant Herring, regarding his race and ancestry and told to look for a job in another department. Plaintiff was retaliated against by defendant Herring, for informing defendants of violations of labor laws regarding another employee. His performance evaluation was changed from Successful to "IR", he was given a CAP and was summarily discharged. Plaintiff is of Vietnamese heritage and national origin. Claims were filed with DFEH.
Disposition: Dismissal
6/28/96 settlement reached at settlement conference
Oral motion by plaintiff’s attorney to dismiss defendants Kastner and Herring granted
Confidential agreement and mutual releases to be signed; settlement amount to be paid by 6/30/96
Other terms recited into record, plaintiff voir dired by counsel and court; plaintiff agrees to terms recited, settlement approved.
Filed: 6/16/95 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Atienza, Edgardo L. Attorney: Frank E. Mayo
Defendant(s): Intel Corp. Case No.: CV750435
COA: Breach of Implied in Fact Contract, Wrongful Employment Termination
Employment Date(s): On or About 6/28/82 - 5/5/95
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): In violation of defendant’s procedural protections for the benefit of employees and without cause plaintiff was terminated.
Disposition: Dismissal
8/8/96 court ordered mediation
Court ordered mediation be completed before mediation status conference scheduled for 10/24/96 10:30 A.M., Dept. 17
11/5/96 dismissal filed by plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys.
(When a dismissal is filed either by plaintiff's attorney or by plaintiff's and defendant's attorney, it usually means that cass settled out of court.)
Filed: 3/6/96 Superior Court of California
Plaintiff: Care, Robert Attorney: Robert H. Morgan,
Defendant(s): Intel Corp. Paul F. Katawicz
Case No.: CV756424
COA: Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of GFFD
Plaintiff’s Allegation(s): Termination based upon a statement made by plaintiff to a co-worker that one of defendant’s contractors was arrogant was pretextual and a retaliatory act by plaintiff’s immediate supervisor.
Disposition: Dismissal
8/30/96 case ordered to judicial arbitration
1/16/97 dismissal filed by plaintiff’s attorney.
(When a dismissal is filed either by plaintiff's attorney or by plaintiff's and defendant's attorney, it usually means that cass settled out of court.)
