 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lim v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America9/14/2005
The Company has reviewed the facts, including your failure to provide a written explanation, surrounding the Lim family life insurance transactions. As a result, the Company has decided to terminate your services and Agreement . . . effective immediately." On November 3, 1998, Hsiao presented the termination letter to Lim.
Lim never met any of the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment and she has no reason to believe any of them had any animosity towards her. Lim does not know whether Hsiao ever spoke to any of these people about her. According to Lim, the only person at Prudential who had the desire or power to deprive her of commissions was Hsiao.
Prudential filed with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) a Form U-5 (Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration), stating Lim was discharged on November 3, 1998 for "insubordination and a failure to conform to Company policies and procedures." Hsiao signed the Form U-5 but she did not fill it out or provide any input concerning its content.
Two weeks after Lim was terminated, two of the six Rodriguez family policies she worked on were "placed" after Prudential received the client's signature on the policies and full payment for the premiums. The client decided to cancel the other four policies. Lim did not receive commissions on these two policies because they were placed after her employment with Prudential had ended.
In November 1999, Lim filed this state court action against Prudential and Hsiao. Lim asserted causes of action against Prudential for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and wrongful termination in breach of an employment agreement. She also asserted a cause of action for defamation against both Prudential and Hsiao. Defendants removed the action to federal district court. The parties filed a series of motions to dismiss and motions to remand. In the end, the federal district court remanded Lim's causes of action for defamation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy to the state superior court below.
Lim's operative cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is set forth in her second amended complaint. Lim alleged her termination was motivated by Hsiao's desire "to deprive of substantial brand new commissions [on the Rodriguez cases], rewards and benefits which she had rightfully earned and to which she was entitled." According to Lim, the reason Hsiao cited for the termination -- the facts and circumstances surrounding the Lim family life insurance cases -- was "pretextual." Lim claimed she "was not guilty of any wrongdoing or misconduct" with respect to the Lim family cases.
Lim's operative cause of action for defamation is set forth in her first amended complaint. Lim alleged Prudential and Hsiao made a false statement to the NASD when they reported on a Form U-5 signed by Hsiao that Prudential had discharged Lim for "insubordination and a failure to conform to Company policies and practices." Lim claimed she was never insubordinate and had "never intentionally or knowingly violated any of Prudential's polices and practices." Lim alleged the false statement was "libelous per se" because it "exposed to hatred, contempt and ridicule and . . . the permanent record tends to injure in her occupation." Lim asserted Prudential and Hsiao made the false statement with malice and "an intent to injure, disgrace, vex, and defame" her.
In January 2004, Prudential moved for summary judgment. Prudential argued the cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy fails because (1) Lim "failed to state a viable public policy to support
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|