 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Patterson v. Verizon Wireless10/25/2005
Submitted on Briefs: May 3, 2005
Appellant John B. Patterson (Patterson) appeals from the order of Montana's Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent Verizon Wireless. We affirm.
We consider the following issue on appeal:
Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to Respondent Verizon Wireless?
BACKGROUND
As early as 1995, Bell Atlantic Corporation and Vodafone Air Touch Plc began discussing opportunities for collaboration in the burgeoning wireless telephone market. To further collaboration, those companies entered into a partnership and created an entity known as Cellco. Cellco, in turn, began doing business as Verizon Wireless. In 2000, and in furtherance of the partnership, Bell Atlantic and Vodafone Air Touch Plc signed a "Secondment Agreement" whereby Vodafone Air Touch Plc would provide employees to staff Cellco /Verizon Wireless (Verizon). As to the employment status of those employees loaned to Verizon by Vodafone Air Touch Plc, the Secondment Agreement, ยง 2.1(a) stated, (a) Seconded employees will remain employees of Vodafone, but will perform services exclusively for the Partnership; . . . .
Despite remaining employees of Vodafone, however, it was Verizon, and not Vodafone, which had the absolute right to fire "seconded" employees.
Air Touch Communications, an affiliate of Vodafone, employed Appellant Patterson as a district manager in Missoula prior to the creation of Verizon. However, in May of 2000, Verizon notified Patterson by letter that he had been assigned to work exclusively for Verizon. That letter also stated that though Patterson would be working for Verizon exclusively, he would "remain an employee of Vodafone / Air Touch or one of its affiliates." Though Patterson appears to believe Verizon "acquired" Air Touch in May of 2000, it is clear that Verizon was the product of the joint venture between Vodafone Air Touch Plc and Bell Atlantic Corporation.
Five months after Patterson began performing services for Verizon, restructuring forced the elimination of his position, effective December 1, 2000. Patterson was notified accordingly by letter on October 2, 2000. The letter also informed Patterson that he had been designated a participant in the "Air Touch Communications Severance Plan," and indicated he could receive $23,978.22 if he elected to participate in the Plan. Included with the "Air Touch Communications Severance Plan" was a "Severance Agreement and Release," and both indicated that in order to participate in the Severance Plan, Patterson would have to release Air Touch and all "affiliates" from, all rights, claims, and actions which the Participant has or may in the future have arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Participant's employment with any Releasee and the termination thereof.
After reviewing the "Severance Agreement and Release" and the "Air Touch Communications Severance Plan," Patterson elected not to sign the agreement, and instead initiated an employment discrimination claim against Verizon Wireless on December 21, 2000. In a deposition, Patterson admitted that one of the reasons he did not sign the "Severance Agreement and Release" was because he did not want to give up his employment discrimination claims. After review, the Human Rights Bureau dismissed the employment discrimination claim as meritless. Thereafter, about one year after receiving the severance offer, Patterson signed the "Severance Agreement and Release" and mailed it to Verizon.
Verizon refused to honor the severance plan, and communicated such to Patterson on Decembe
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|