Ziolkowski v. Caterpillar, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 August 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-C-827.,91-C-827.
• Citation: 800 F. Supp. 767
• Parties: Timothy J. ZIOLKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. CATERPILLAR INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

800 F. Supp. 767

Timothy J. ZIOLKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. CATERPILLAR INC., Defendant.

No. 91-C-827.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

August 5, 1992.

Michael Jassak, Habush, Habush & Davis, Racine, Wis., for plaintiff.

Robert Schreiber, Lindner & Marsack, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

CURRAN, District Judge.

Timothy J. Ziolkowski commenced the above-captioned case against Caterpillar, Inc., his former employer, seeking compensatory damages, restitution and restoration of benefits on account of the breach of an oral employment agreement and for relief under the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Defendant removed this case from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County (Wisconsin), then answered, denying liability. After the deadline for the taking of all discovery had passed, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no material facts in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). This court has diversity jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims raised in that Ziolkowski claims to be a citizen of Wisconsin;¹ Caterpillar is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois; and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

I. FACTS

Pursuant to Local Rule 6, § 6.05, the Defendant has submitted a list of proposed findings of fact.² The Defendant states that:

1. Plaintiff is an adult resident of Wisconsin, residing at 6741 South 19th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

2. Defendant, Caterpillar, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 100 NE Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois.

3. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to pay all of Plaintiff's law school tuition, the value of all employee benefits including health, dental and life insurance for the period during which he is in law school, the value of employment with Defendant during periods of vacation from law school, the value of lost seniority and vacation leave associated with continued employment with Defendant and payment of the costs of obtaining and locating alternative employment.

4. Diversity jurisdiction exists between the parties and this matter is properly venued in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.³

5. Plaintiff applied for a position with Defendant on October 31, 1989, in response to its advertisement for electronic engineers. He was scheduled to graduate with an electrical engineering degree (B.S.E.E.) in December of that year and stated in his application that he was considering a master's degree in either engineering or business or a patent law degree for his future educational plans.

6. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on January 29, 1990, as a College Graduate Trainee (CGT) at a starting salary of $2,850 per month. The CGT program is one year long and consists of a series of 6 to 8 week assignments in various of Defendant's departments.

7. Prior to any contact with Defendant, Plaintiff had an interest in attending law school and took the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) on September 23, 1989. Two months subsequent to his employment with Defendant, he applied for admission to Marquette University Law School.

8. One of Plaintiff's CGT assignments was in Defendant's Patent Department from April 2, 1990, to May 18, 1990. William Thompson was the head of the Patent Department with Robert Muir being second in command. Thompson reported to Robert Thornton, Vice-President.

9. Upon receiving his acceptance from Marquette University Law School on April 30, 1990, Plaintiff spoke to Muir and Thompson requesting a leave of absence to go to law school. Thompson asked Plaintiff whether he would be interested in working in the Patent Department and pursuing his law degree part-time while continuing employment with the company; Plaintiff responded that he preferred to go to school right away. Thompson indicated to Plaintiff that he would need to get information regarding leaves of absence and discuss the situation with Thornton.

10. During a meeting with Muir on the evening of Memorial Day, 1990, Plaintiff reaffirmed his desire to go to law school immediately rather than the alternative of a longer law school program while remaining employed.

11. In mid-June, 1990, Muir informed Plaintiff that he had done everything that he could, but that his educational leave of absence request had been denied since he had less than a year's service. Plaintiff was made aware that Defendant's educational leave of absence program was not available to employees with less than one year's service.

12. Defendant's written educational leave of absence policy includes a requirement that an employee have a minimum of one year of continuous service with Defendant at the time the educational leave begins.

13. On or about June 22, 1990, Plaintiff drafted a personal letter to James Wogsland, Vice-Chairman of Caterpillar, Inc., requesting reconsideration of the decision to deny the leave of absence. At the same time, Muir suggested that Plaintiff delay sending the letter to Wogsland and allow the Patent Department to seek reconsideration of the decision on his behalf.

14. In July, 1990, Plaintiff told a co-worker, David Masterson, that he would be leaving his rented home in Peoria and agreed to sublease the residence to Masterson. On July 25, 1990, Masterson paid Plaintiff a deposit for this sublease.⁴

15. An opportunity for Plaintiff to meet personally with Wogsland to discuss his situation was scheduled for August 8, 1990. Prior to this meeting, on August 7, 1990, Wayne Zimmerman, Vice-President, Human Services Division, directed a memo to Wogsland summarizing the countervailing considerations pertaining to the requested leave and suggesting various conditions for such a leave of absence should Wogsland decide to support it.

16. Plaintiff met with Wogsland for ten minutes on Wednesday, August 8, 1990. Immediately after that meeting or the following day, Plaintiff drafted his summary of this meeting. Plaintiff described his conversation with Wogsland as follows:⁵

a. Plaintiff gave Wogsland his June 12, 1990, letter and Wogsland read it.

b. Wogsland asked Plaintiff whether he was willing to make a commitment to the Defendant and Plaintiff asked what kind of commitment. Wogsland said a commitment to work one year for Defendant for each year of school and Plaintiff stated he was willing to make such a commitment.

c. Wogsland said that if Plaintiff did not fulfill the commitment to work for Defendant for three years following his graduation from law school, he would have to reimburse Defendant for medical coverage expenses incurred by Defendant on Plaintiff's behalf during his schooling.

d. When Plaintiff asked Wogsland about tuition reimbursement for his schooling, Wogsland said he had not been made aware that that was part of the leave of absence request. Plaintiff stated that he had been talking with the Patent Department about tuition and Wogsland responded that, if that was the case, he would get it.

e. At the conclusion of their meeting, Wogsland told Plaintiff that he had to meet with Wayne Zimmerman, Vice-President, Human Services, to work out the details of a leave of absence.

17. The following subjects and issues pertaining to an educational leave of absence were not discussed during Plaintiff's meeting with Wogsland:

a. The compensation level to be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff following his graduation from law school was not discussed.

b. Plaintiff and Wogsland did not discuss what would happen regarding the parties' obligations if Defendant could not offer Plaintiff employment subsequent to his graduation from law school.

c. They did not discuss summer employment opportunities for Plaintiff nor did they discuss what would happen if Defendant did not offer summer employment to Plaintiff. Also, there was no discussion regarding compensation levels for summer employment.

d. Plaintiff and Wogsland did not discuss whether he would be granted three one-year leaves of absence subject to renewal versus one three year leave.

e. The method for determining the amount of Plaintiff's potential medical expense reimbursement obligation was not discussed.

f. They did not discuss procedures to be used for tuition reimbursement.

18. At the conclusion of his meeting with Wogsland on August 8, 1990, Plaintiff's understanding was that he would receive no tuition reimbursement until he came back to work for Defendant after his graduation from law school.

19. The oral educational leave of absence agreement being asserted by Plaintiff is based upon his August 8, 1990, conversation with Wogsland and he acknowledges that conversation to constitute the full extent of the agreement. Plaintiff asserts that the alleged oral agreement was the basis for leaving his employment with Defendant on August 10, 1990, to go to law school in Milwaukee.

20. Pursuant to Wogsland's directive, Plaintiff contacted Zimmerman on August 9, 1990, to work out the provisions of an educational leave of absence. During this meeting, Zimmerman asked Plaintiff whether he understood that the leave of absence would have to be agreed to in writing and Plaintiff stated that he did. Plaintiff agreed with Zimmerman's statement that this written agreement would have to be signed by the parties.⁶

21. During Plaintiff's conversations with Zimmerman on August 9, 1990, there was some disagreement regarding certain terms of the leave of absence. There was confusion as to whether tuition reimbursement payment would be made year-by-year or only after graduation from law school. Zimmerman also mentioned Plaintiff's obligation to pay back tuition reimbursement if he did not stay for three years following graduation and Plaintiff disagreed on the grounds that Wogsland had not stated that. A difference of opinion also existed about whether Plaintiff's medical expense reimbursement obligation...