District Court upholds jury award against GM

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
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."

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?