Illinois Lawyer Blog

The retaliatory discharge case recently filed by Paul Liska against his former employer, Motorola, is getting nasty. According to Wailin Wong's April 16, 2009 article in the Chicago Tribune, Motorola recently filed a motion with the trial judge alleging that Liska destroyed evidence on a Motorola laptop he used after his termination.

In a Memorandum filed with their Motion, Motorola detailed that Liska was informed on January 28, 2009 that he was being replaced. Liska was apparently last in his Motorola office on January 29, 2009. Motorola alleged that when Liska left that day, he took a company laptop and some documents. Motorola subsequently requested that the laptop be returned. When Motorola got it back it was a "blank slate". Motorola then went out and hired a forensic computer firm to analyze the laptop. The forensic experts concluded....[cue dramatic music] that a date destruction program had been run on the computer several times between January 30 and February 12.

Motorola is also asking the trial judge for permission to examine any computers Liska may have acccessed in the past year. Liska had earlier denied he took any Motorola property.

Wow. A recent Chicago Tribune by Wailin Wong detailed how a corporate marriage can go bad. Very bad.

By way of background, in early 2008, Motorola, hired Paul Liska as the new Chief Financial Officer. Motorola's flagship mobile phone unit, which once was on the cutting edge with innovations like the Razr cellphone, had taken on water and needed to get back on track. The plan was to separate the mobile phone division from the other Motorola business groups. The thought was that Liska's background as a corporate dealmaker would prepare Motorola for the eventual separation of the phone unit.

Things apparently came to a boil in January of 2009. An important meeting was scheduled for January 28, 2009. Liska was to make a presentation at that meeting. According to Liska, he was concerned that certain Motorola financial forecasts were flawed and that Motorola had limited credibility with credit ratings agencies. Liska claims he shared those concerns with CEO Greg Brown prior to the presentation. At the January 28, 2009 meeting, Liska included those concerns in his presentation.

The next day, January 29, 2009, Lisak was shut out of a scheduled board meeting. That same day CEO Brown advised Liska that he was being replaced. And now the fur has begun to fly. Liska has filed suit against Motorola for retaliatory discharge, alleging that he was fired for attempting to bring his concerns about the flawed financial forecasts to a Motorola audit committee. Motorola, for its part, claims that Liska misrepresented his presentation to Brown and that his conclusions were misguided. In addition, Motorola claims that Liska had not been keeping abreast of the mobile business operations.

Recently unsealed court documents and filings provide some additional details on a business marriage gone bad. There was, according to Motorola, jealousy. Motorola alleged that Liska was jealous of the compensation package enjoyed by Chief Executive Sanjay Jha. Motorola additionally claims that as a result of that jealousy, Liska developed a "vendetta against Dr. Jha and the Mobile Business Devices business". And, according to Motorola, there was pettiness. Liska failed to prepare for meetings and acted "abrasive and dismissive". [I was under the impression that titans of commerce were supposed to be abrasive and dismissive - you know, like Donald Trump].

Finally, according to Motorola, the parties inevitably grew distant. Liska started talking to a headhunter and working at a private office.

Liska on the other hand, claims he was blindsided. He insists he received praise for his performance and was given additional responsibilties on the job. He denies he ever discussed the need for a new job with the headhunter.

Lastly, and not suprisingly, the parties, apparently argued about money. Lots of money. Motorola claims Liska tried to "fleece" Motorola by demanding a settlement of $37 million. Liska denies doing so. This facet of the case is particularly astonishing to me. They weren't arguing about the keys to the Executive washroom or a primo parking spot. They are arguing about whether someone demanded $37 million dollars. I repeat, $37 million dollars. Hard to imagine any ambiguity when it comes to $37 million dollars.

I suspect there will be further interesting revelations as this one winds it way through the litigation process.

The First District Appellate Court recently handed down an opinion precluding lawyers from signing Requests to Admit responses for their clients, even if the client can't be found. In Brookbank v. Olson, counsel for the plaintiff, Lauren Brookbank, served Requests to Admit regarding the reasonableness of Ms. Brookbank's medical bills on the defendant, Katie Ann Olson. Under Illnois Supreme Court Rule 216, a party may serve another party with a list of facts seeking admission of those facts. The concept behind the Request to Admit is to narrow the roster of contested issues. The party[i.e. the client] served with a Request to Admit Facts must respond within 28 days, with a signed statement denying the the matters for which admission is sought, or setting forth in detail the reasons he cannot truthfully admit or deny those matters. If the served party fails to do so, the matters set forth in the Request are deemed admitted. Brookbank's lawyers issued the Request to Admit in an effort to have the reasonableness of the medical bills admitted before trial. If they were admitted, then the bills could simply be introduced at trial with no foundation necessary.

Olson's attorneys, hired by her insurer, advised the Court they could not find their client, even after they sent an investigator out to look for her. Brookbank's counsel then moved to have the matters deemed admitted, but Olson's lawyers asked the trial court if they could sign and verify the request for their client. The Court allowed them to do so, but then directed that the issue of whether lawyers could sign for their clients be reviewed by the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court. The Court noted that the plaint language of Rule 216 calls for the sworn statement to be made by the party. The Court noted that without any client contact, the attorney's sworn statement is meaningless, as there is no indication the party signed off on the responses. The defendant did raise a good point - most clients have no idea about the reasonableness of medical bills and would have to rely on their attorney. The Appellate Court acknowledged that the ruling would leave lawyers faced with a Request to Admit in a tricky position if they can't locate their client. That issue however, they decided to leave for the Illinois Supreme Court to decide. As it stands now, lawyers can't sign for their clients.

According to a April 8, 2009 item in the Chicago Tribune, about 25,000 playpens made in China and imported by Simplicity Inc. and SFCA Inc. have been recalled. The playpen in question is known as the "Travel Tender Play Yard"[shown below]. The playpens are portable and feature a bassinet, along with a changing table. The specific defect involves a series of rails that can collapse unexpectedly, causing children to fall or become entrapped. The playpens were sold in Burlington Coat Factory stores and online at Babiesrus.com, Target.com and Kohls.com from March, 2005 through January, 2009.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission[CPSC] has initiated a recall after becoming aware of at least 5 incidents where the rails collapsed. Thankfully, no injuries have been reported. Nonetheless, the CPSC is recommending that consumers should stop using the playpens immediately and return them to the place of purchase for refund or replacement.

This isn't the first time Simplicity products have been the subject of recalls. In September, 2008 the CPSC had come under fire after failing to take appropriate action after becoming aware that two infants had died when the Simplicity Bassinet in which they were situated collapsed. The CPSC did issue a recall for the Simplicity brand items. Turns out however, that the exact same bassinet was being sold by a different company under a different name. Despite being so advised, the CPSC failed to issue a recall for those bassinets.

Recently saw an interesting article about a multi-million dollar settlement resulting from devastating injuries suffered by a little boy at a Burger King restuarant in Southern California. Back in August of 2005, Jacob Buckett,[pictured below, before the incident] then only 8, accompanied his dad and younger sister to lunch at a Burger King in Temecula, California. The particular restuarant they chose had an attached play area, with a jungle gym[known as "soft-contained playgrounds" - like the one in the photo above]. Jacob went to play on the Jungle Gym and climbed up one of the horizontal support poles. He lost his balance and fell, cracking his head on the tile floor.

Jacob suffered a traumatic brain injury which kept him in a coma for two months. He was hospitalized for a full six months. The brain damage he suffered left him partially paralyzed and with severe emotional and cognitive defects. Although Jacob is now 12, he has the maturity level of a 6 year old.

Jacob's parents sued, claiming that the franchise owner, The Breckenridge Group, and the parent company, Burger King, knew the Jungle Gym was dangerous, but didn't address the problems. Specifically, the Bucketts argued that the play area lacked "no-climb netting" and floor padding. They further alleged that the defendants were on notice about these defects because of previous incidents. The Bucketts also alleged that the owner of the franchise, failed to post warning signs and refused to retrofit the structure.

The article suggested that the defendants in their responsive pleadings suggested the Jacob's father was at least partly responsible for failing to properly supervise the child. That assertion was neutralized by videotapes showing numerous children misusing the equipment on a regular basis prior to Jacob's accident.

The parties settled the case for $20 million, which will pay for enormous and on-going medical bills, rehabilitation therapy and 24 hour attendant care for Jacob.