ILNews

Ex-HHGregg manager's lawsuit grows into class-action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A lawsuit brought by a former HHGregg Inc. manager charging that the company failed to pay incentive bonuses has been granted class-action status by a Marion Superior Court judge.

Former accounting manager Dwain Underwood filed his complaint in March 2013, claiming that the Indianapolis-based appliance, electronics and furniture retailer failed to factor a $40 million payout into the calculation used to determine whether employees were entitled to incentive bonuses.

The company collected the payout after Executive Chairman Jerry Throgmartin died in 2012.

Underwood claims HHGregg should have paid him a $25,000 bonus based on the company’s fiscal 2012 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, of $144.4 million.

Underwood claims HHGregg wrongly based bonuses on “adjusted EBITDA,” which excluded the life insurance payout. The payout sent HHGregg's profit soaring in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2012.

The complaint involves 62 current and former HHGregg employees, according to Judge Robert R. Altice Jr.’s July 9 ruling awarding Underwood’s suit class-action status.

Underwood’s attorney, Eric Pavlack, said the amount of unpaid bonuses totals about $5 million.

“We’re very pleased with the decision,” he said. “We weren’t surprised because we think it’s the right decision. We were hopeful that this is what would happen.”

A spokeswoman for HHGregg said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

In rendering his decision, the judge disagreed with HHGregg’s argument that class-action status should not be granted because some members don’t want to belong to the suit.

“If such class members do not wish to participate in this case,” Altice wrote, “they will have the opportunity to opt out after receiving notice.”

Underwood voluntarily left the company in January 2013, two months before he filed suit.

He is suing the company for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

 
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT