ILNews

District Court upholds jury award against GM

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A U.S. District judge chastised General Motors for the way the company treated its salaried employees who gave up being under union protection and later wanted to rejoin the union as hourly workers. In an opinion released Aug. 15, Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, upheld a $3.1 jury award against GM for promissory estoppel claims, finding the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to prove their Sixth Amendment claim against the company.

Judge Hamilton ruled on GM's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial in Harold Burton, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, No. 1:95-CV-1054-DFH-TAB, and denied both motions. The District Court also denied GM's motion to strike the plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial.

The plaintiffs were five employees at the Allison Engine Division of GM who originally worked in hourly, union-protected positions and were recruited by GM to take jobs as first-line supervisors. As supervisors, they were no longer organized under the union and were told by GM they could return to the hourly, unionized positions if they desired. However, once GM decided to sell Allison Engine, it froze transfers back to the union positions without telling supervisors.

After more than 10 years of litigation to decide whether state or federal laws applied to the plaintiffs' claims, their Sixth Amendment complaint for promissory estoppel and fraud was allowed to proceed to a jury trial in 2008. The jury found the plaintiffs proved their promissory estoppel claims, but not the fraud claims, and awarded the plaintiffs more than $3 million.

GM moved for a judgment as a matter of law, arguing multiple errors were made with regard to the plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claims and the jury award of damages was improper. GM also sought a new trial on those grounds.

Judge Hamilton denied GM's motions, finding the plaintiffs provided ample evidence to show GM planned to sell Allison Engine and deceptively prevented the plaintiffs from returning to their hourly positions before the sale.

"Plaintiffs' evidence was powerful and compelling. General Motors' defenses were weak attempts to evade responsibility for the promises it had made to some of its best and most important employees to persuade them to give up the security and benefits they had had under the union's protection," wrote Judge Hamilton. "To the extent the company has a conscience, General Motors and its management should be ashamed of the way they treated these employees."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT