Charlie Mattenson,, Esq. appears to be having the last laugh in his dispute with his former employer, Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Baxter fired Mattenson, a former in-house patent counsel, at Baxter allegedly based upon poor performance reviews. Mattenson sued Baxter based upon a claim of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). In November of 2003 a jury awarded Mattenson backpay damages in the amount of $532,791.28. The award was increased to $1,065,582.56 based upon a determination that the violation was willful.
The ADEA award was recently sustained by the trial court in Mattenson v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, No. 02 CV 3283 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Baxter argued on motion that Mattenson failed to prove that he had met Baxter's "legitimate expectations" in his employment. Mattenson argued that a negative July 2001 review and performance improvement plan was a "pretext" to force him out of Baxter. Baxter replaced Mattenson with an attorney who was 16 years younger and paid him a higher salary.
An interesting twist in the evidence included the testimony of Marla Persky, Baxter's Deputy Counsel who testified that Baxter was committed to helping Mattenson and had no intention of firing him. Unfortunately for Baxter there was this memo written by Stephanie Bradley, Vice-President and General Counsel of Baxter concerning a meeting that she had with Persky indicating that Mattenson would not be employed by Baxter within six months. Persky testified that there was no litigation contemplated at the time of her meeting with Bradley, but Bradley asserted during discovery that the notes of the meeting were privileged as Bradley's work product, prepared in anticipation of litigation. Inconsistency can be hazardous to your healthcare company.
Comments