Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America
Citation | 676 F. Supp. 1332 |
Decision Date | 28 December 1987 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-0455-R. |
Parties | Richard HAIGH, and Norma Haigh, Plaintiffs, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a Panasonic Company, a Delaware corporation, Gerald Willner, Myron Berman, Barry Kanow, Bernie Adamyk, Steve Latini, Steve Gold, Ralph Wolfe, Jeff Kellner, and Gary Weber, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert L. Freed, John Patrick Griffin, Thomas G. Haskins, Richmond, Va., J.W. Harmon, Jr., for plaintiffs.
Howard W. Dobbins, James V. Meath, Robert D. Perrow, Sarah Hopkins Finley, Williams, Mullen, Christian and Dobbins, P.C., Lynne Jacob, Richmond, Va., for defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on two motions by defendants. The first, a motion to dismiss, will be granted in part and denied in part. The second, a motion to compel the production of certain tape recordings, will be granted.
Plaintiff Richard Haigh ("Haigh"), a Virginia citizen, was employed by defendant Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (hereinafter "Panasonic") from October 17, 1974 through January 27, 1987. He is fifty-seven years old, and is Jewish. Plaintiff Norma Haigh, a Virginia citizen, is Haigh's wife.
Defendant Panasonic is a Delaware corporation. The individual defendants (hereinafter referred to by their last names), none of whom are Virginia citizens, are employees of Panasonic.
The Second Amended Complaint, which is currently before the Court, is sixty-eight pages long, and contains a plethora of allegations. In brief, Haigh states that he was a salesman for Panasonic who handled the accounts of Best Products and Circuit City. Haigh claims that during his tenure business with these two outfits skyrocketed. In December 1986, Haigh was told that the Best Products and Circuit City accounts were being taken away from him and given to defendant Weber. Haigh also claims he was told his salary would be cut, along with his earnable bonuses. Additionally, he was told that he would be reassigned from his Richmond, Virginia location to the Panasonic accounts in western Virginia. Haigh claims he argued that the reassignment was unlawful, and requested to be told the legitimate business reason for the action. In response, defendants Willner and Adamyk allegedly proposed that the Richmond accounts of Thalhimers, Miller & Rhoads, Robert's Leasing, and Dominion Pottery be added to Haigh's new territory. Haigh also asserts that these two defendants sought a complete release for all of Panasonic's actions to date.
In due course, by letter dated January 27, 1987, Haigh stated that his reassignment was unacceptable, and claimed that Panasonic had constructively terminated his employment. Since that time, Haigh claims to have vigorously sought employment without success.
Haigh's Second Amended Complaint contains sixteen counts.
Defendants deny liability on any and all counts, and, by motion and accompanying memorandum pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), seek dismissal of a number of Counts. Plaintiffs responded by way of memorandum, and defendants replied to that response. A hearing was held on the motion on September 22, 1987, at which time plaintiffs sought a delay in the Court's ruling to enable discovery to proceed so that certain issues could be more fully and accurately addressed. Subsequently, plaintiffs were permitted to file a Second Amended Complaint, after which defendants were allowed to file a supplemental memorandum. That memorandum has now been filed, and the motion is ripe for decision. The issues presented by the motion are set out in the following section of this Memorandum and Order.
Defendants present eleven issues in connection with their motion to dismiss.
In Count Four, Haigh alleges that defendant Kanow defamed him at a Panasonic sales meeting. The allegation is spelled out in Paragraph 122 of the Second Amended Complaint:
On or about April 24, 1987, at Panasonic's national sales meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, Kanow told a group of Panasonic employees that Haigh had applied for employment with Luskin's, Inc., but that "Luskin's would not give him the time of day." According to witnesses, the implication was that because of Haigh's poor job performance at Panasonic, he was not capable of managing the new Luskin's stores in Richmond. In fact, Haigh was clearly qualified and capable for the job since he had managed similar stores while he was employed by Ward's TV (predecessor of Circuit City), and had established a good reputation in the Richmond electronics market through his association with Best, Circuit City, Dominion Pottery, and other area wholesalers.
Haigh seeks to hold Kanow and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ball v. Joy Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 1:87-0268
... ... by the United States Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 ... & C Energy, Inc., 355 S.E.2d 629 (W.Va.1987); General Elec. Co. v. Keyser, 166 W.Va. 456, 275 S.E.2d 289 (1981), and ... But see Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 676 F.Supp. 1332 ... ...
-
Atkins v. Indus. Telecommunications Ass'n, 93-CV-1101.
...the employee's refusal to commit an unlawful act or in the employee's exercise of a statutory right." Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 676 F.Supp. 1332, 1351 (E.D.Va. 1987). Second, ITA argues, and we agree, that the statutes upon which Atkins relies do not appear to confer on di......
-
Storey v. Patient First Corp.
...F.Supp. 1030, 1055-56 (E.D.Va.1995); Flinders v. Datasec Corp., 742 F.Supp. 929, 935 (E.D.Va.1990); Haigh v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America, 676 F.Supp. 1332, 1349 (E.D.Va.1987) (citing Welch v. Kennedy Piggly Wiggly Stores, Inc., 63 B.R. 888, 894 (W.D.Va.1986)). However, "if it can b......
-
Miller v. Washington Workplace, Inc.
...that assault upon an employee is an "injury by accident" within the meaning of the statute); Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F.Supp. 1332, 1352-54 (E.D.Va.1987) (Spencer, J.) (holding that Virginia does not recognize an intentional tort exception to worker's compensation coverag......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...an employee for refusing to violate antitrust laws violates public policy. See, e.g., Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1987); Winther v. DEC Int’l, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 100 (D. Colo. (predicting Colorado law); Perry v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 537 F. Supp. 1387......
-
Privilege and work product
...( citing H.L. Hayden Co. v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. , 108 F.R.D. 686-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); Haigh v. Matsushita Electric Corp. , 676 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1987). ii. Documents of an accountant employed for the case. In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig. , 693 F. 2d 1235 (5th C......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...an employee for refusing to violate antitrust laws violates public policy. See , e.g., Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am. , 676 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1987); Winther v. DEC Int’l, Inc. , 625 F. Supp. 100 (D. Colo. 1985) (predicting Colorado law); Perry v. Hartz Mountain Corp. , 537 F. ......
-
Privilege and work product
...( citing H.L. Hayden Co. v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. , 108 F.R.D. 686-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. , 676 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1987). ii. Documents of an accountant employed for the case. In re International Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig. , 693 F.2d 1235 (5......