Bazzetta v. Daimler AG - Complaint

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS
RECEIPT Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 1 of 26

NUMBER
a-co 5 I 'f1/6 D
ORIGINAL
UlIUTED STArES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGA."I rJfo
. " SOUTHERl"l DIVISION
Q:;tloc.h A-:f3
JUDGE: Cohn, Avern
DECK : S. Division Civil Deck
DAVID J. BAZZETTA, DArE : 09/28/2004 @ 16: 38:43
CASE NUMBER: 2:04CV73B06
Plaintiff, ClIP BAZZETTA V. DAIIILERCHRYSLER
(DA)
-v-
DAiMLERCHRYSLER CORP.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C.

SUE ELLEN EISENBERG (P25530)
KATHLEEN L. BOGAS (P25164)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway
Suite 145
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
Tel: 248-258-6080
Fax: 248-258-9212
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by and through his attorneys,
Eisenberg & Bogas, P.C., and states as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. T11is Court has jurisdihtion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (b) (1) (B)
(Sarbanes-Oxley); 29 U.S.C. § 626(c) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); 42
U.S.C. § 12117(a) (Americans with Disabilities Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
, .
jurisdiction); and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a) (4) Gurisdiction over civil rights claims). This
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 2 of 26
Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law
i
claims of retaliation in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.2101,
I
et seq. and the Miehigan Handieappersj Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.1101 and retaliatory
discharge in violation of public policy. I

I
2. Plaintiff is a eitizen of �le Unites States and resides in Macomb County,
Michigan.
3. Defendant DaimlerChryslcr Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.
4. I
DaimlerChryslcr Corp. s a wholly-owned subsidiary and business unit of
DaimlcrChryslcr AG, a German corpo Ja tion.
5. DaimlerChrysler AG, J s an international company that is listed on the

I
New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE;') and on other stock exchanges throughout the
rrl
world, DaimlerChrysler AG and Dai lerChrysler Corp. arc subject to the provisions of
I
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enacted in the U.S. in July 2002.
6. I
DaimlerChrysler Corp. is an agent of DaimlerChrysler AG within the
I
meaning o[the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. i
7. DaimlerChrysler corp. l lso is a contractor of Daimler Chrysler AG within
the meaning of the Sarbanes-Oxley Ae . �

8. The discriminatory e � PIOyment practices alleged m this Complaint
occurred within the State of Michigan .I

!
9. This is an action for retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
�
2002, retaliation in violation of the A e Discrimination in Employment Aet ("ADEA''),
J
retaliation in violation of the Ameri ans with Disabilities Aet ("ADA"), retaliation in
.
- 2-
violation of the Elliott-Larsen Rights Act ("ELCRA"), and the Michigan
Handicappers' Civil Rights Act ("E[CLA").
I O. Defendant is an employer and Plaintiff was its employee within the

I
meaning orthe Sarbanes-Oxlcy Act, APEA, ADA, the ELCRA and the HCLA.
11. 1
On or about January 14 2004, Plaintiff was terminated from his position
with Defendant.
12. On March 22, 2004, Plaintiff filed a timely complaint under Sarbanes-
Oxley with the Occupational safct J and Health Administration ("OSHA") of the
Department of Labor.
13. In accordance with 18 i

l .S.C. § 1514A(b)(I)(B), the 180 day period in
i
which OSHA was to issue a final dee ion elapsed on September 18, 2004. OSHA has
1
I
not issued a final decision and Plaintif · has the right to proceed in the appropriate district
court oCthe United States.
f
14. On March 29, 2004, Plaintiff timely filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") a harge of retaliation in violation of the ADEA and
ADA, which was within 300 days of the commission of the unlawful employment
practices alleged in this claim.
15. Plaintiff received his notice of right to sue on June 30, 2004, and hc has
b
filed this complaint within 90 days of r eeiVing his notice of rights. Exhibit A.
16.
.
rI
Defendant has waived n writing any requirement that Plaintiff exhaust
Defendant's internal employee dispute resolution procedure or arbitrate his claims.
Exhibit B.
17. The amount in eontro\lersy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and
-3-
costs.
ST OF FACTS
18. Plaintiff was hired by pefendarlt's predecessor, Chrysler Corp., in May

1983. Plaintiff was hired as a financiallanllly!;t.
19. At all times relevant nel,C1<),Plaintiff performed his job diligently.
20. On or about January 2004, Plaintiff was terminated from his position
as Director of Corporate and Product Analysis in the Product Development
Finance Group at DaimlerChrysler ("DCC").
21. From March 2001 to 2002, Plaintiff held the position of Director of
Manufacturing, Procurement & and Research & Development Audit, in the
Corpol"dte Audit Department. was placed in this position by Mr. James Donlon
then-Senior Vice President and at DCC. Mr. Donlon instructed Plaintiff to
"shake t11ings up in the Audit because Mr. Donlon as Controller, was deeply
concerned the Corporate Audit become complacent about its mission and
responsibilities and was "cozy" witll the departments that it was auditing.
22. In the first meeting Mr. Chuck Struve the VP of Corporate Audit,
Plaintiff was told by Mr. Struve that was not the first choice of available candidates to
join the Audit group.
23. In July 2001, during a Audit Executive Committee meeting in
Stuttgart, Germany, Plaintiff learned that business units within DaimlerChrysler AG
continued to maintain secret bank aec;ounts to bribe foreign government officials even
though the company knew and that the practice was illcgal under Unitcd
States securities laws.
-4-
24. During the discussion, flubertus Buderath, Vice President of Corporate
Audit (Stuttgart) for DaimlerChryslcr hG made a prescntation. Mr. Budcrath reported

I
that he had just returned from a trip to South America whcrc he had met with the CEO of
I
the Mercedcs Benz Busincss Unit. fv:!r. Buderath further explained that a common
b
practice of Daimler Benz prior to the a quisition of the Chrysler Corporation was the use
i
of secret bank accounts to bribe government officials (i.e., a ecrtain amount was
withhcld/deductcd from thc gross proc 6eds from the sale of each Mercedes vehicle at the
J
Business Unit and deposited in a local ank account).
I
25. More specifically, Mr. Buderath stated that: (1) he had briefed the then-
J
Chairman of DCAG, Jurgen sehremp (to whom Mr. Buderath directly reported) as to
l
the fact that forty (40) accounts of this ature still existed; and (2) Dr. Manfred Gentz, the
:
CFO of DCAG, was aware of this practice and that the dollars represented by these
!
accounts were "buried" deep in DCAGis balance sheet.
26. l
Mr. Buderath further st ted that the company planned to wind-down this
d
practice (acknowledging that it viol ted SEC regulations) with the caveats that the
1
remaining forty accounts continued to xist world-wide and that these accounts would be
difficult to eliminate because the chief:executives of the Business Units not only favored
i
this practice but believed it a necessary cost of doing business.
I
27. On the day of the meeting, Plaintiff protested the company's continuing
J
use of the illegal secret bank aceou ts to the American Vice President in eharge of
J
Corporate Audit, Charles Struve, wh also was Plaintiffs immediate supervisor at the
l
timo.
28 . I��'" of �,re�;"g oo�= obo", th" Hlogal ,=tioo. M,. StMO
I -
5-
expressed dismay at Plaintiff raising th� issue. Mr. Struve instructed Plaintiff to "forget
what was said." Mr. Struve further i � sistcd that "issues that arisc in Corporate Audit
must rcmain in Corporate Audit."
29. Mr. Struvc madc clear that he would undertake no action to invcstigatc or
recommend that the practice immediately eeasc, which Plaintiff believed Mr. Struve was
obliged to do in his capacity as the head of Corporate Audit.
30. As a result of Mr. Struve's response, Plaintiff believed hat he had to take
the issue to a person higher in the comrany's organization.
31. Upon Plaintiff's return from Stuttgart, Plaintiff sought out Mr. Donlon to
rcport the company's continuing violations of securities law.
32. Plaintiff bclieved that Mr. Donlon, as a scnior corporate officer, was the
appropriate individual to investigatc and address the issues of secret bank accounts and
bribery of foreign governmental officials and would pass the information onto his boss
(Dr. Manfred Gcntz, Chief Financial Officer of DaimlerChrysler AG and mcmber of thc
Board of Managcmcnt of DaimlerChryslcr AG), who had ultimatc responsibility for
financial ovcrsight and compliance.
33. Plaintiff protestcd thc company's illegal conduct to Mr. Donlon.
34. Plaintiff also protested Mr. Struvc's failure to appropriately rcspond to
Plaintiff's complaint, Mr. Struvc's dismissivc attitude toward Plaintiffs complaint, and
Mr. Struvc's thinly-vcilcd threat that Plaintiff should not take his complaint to anyonc
!
outsidc Corporatc Audit.
35. During Plaintiffs timc in thc Corporate Audit Dcpartment, March 2001 to
March 2002, Plaintiff was involvcd i� a number of audits that uncovcred qucstionable
- 6-
business practiccs. The results of an a �dit can affect Defcndant's rcports to shareholders
and the Securitics and Exchangc Commission.
36. . In a number of instanecs, including thc Prccious Metals Audit, the S%
Cost Reduction Audit and thc CN Process Audit, Mr. Struve forbade thc publication of
these audits entirely or until they were dramatically changed.
37. Mr. Struvc's position as the hcad of DaimlerChrysler's Corporate Audit
Departmcnt rcquircd him to sign and approve cvery audit. Accordingly, if he did not
approve an audit, then thc audit would not bc released.
38. Plaintiff rcasonably belicvcd that that Mr. Struvc's dccisions to withhold
certain audits were improper. Plaintiff also reasonably belicved that the audits would
i
negativcly affect Daimler Chrysler's financial reports, and public statements made
regarding the Company's Financial Turnaround Plan (2001-2003)
39. Plaintiff repeatedly objected dircctly to Mr. Struve about thc withhcld
audits.
40. Plaintiff also advised Mf. Donlon about the suppressed audits.
!
41. Plaintiff provided copics of buried audits to Mr. Donlon.
42. Mr. Donlon was not a member of the Corporate Audit Department. The
Corporate Audit Departmcnt, however, had a functional reporting relationship to Mr.
Donlon in that thc audits were prepared for and transmittcd to Mr. Donlon.
43. In October 2001, at a dinncr mecting, Hubertus Buderath, Mr. Struvc's
German eountcrpart, told Plaintiff that Mr. Struvc was retiring and that Plaintiff was Mr.
Budcrath's ehoicc to head up the Auburn Hills Audit group.
44. Mr. Buderath told Plaintiff that Mr. Struve blamed Plaintiff for pushing
- 7-
Mr. Donlon to force Mr. Struve to retirc and that Mr. Struve did not want to retire.
45. At the annual Audit D �Partmcnt mccting in Lamerbuckcl, Germany in
l
December 2001, Mr. Struve along with Mr. Buderath told Plaintiff that Mr. Struve would
I
be retiring and that Plaintiff would not be placed into Mr. Struve's position. Previously,
i
in October 2001, Mr. Buderath told Pla ntiff that Plaintiff would receive Mr. Struve's job.
46. l
When Plaintiff question d Mr. Buderath about the dccision to pass over
J
Plaintiff for Mr. Struvc's job, Mr. Bud rath replied that he had received new information
from Mr. Struve that had changed his rrl ind about Plaintiff.
47. I
When Plaintiff inquircd further, Mr. Buderath declined to provide details.
l
Mr. Struve and Mr. Buderath stated th t Plaintiff "did not fit the audit mold," which is a
l
statement that Mr. Struve had repeat dlY made to Plaintiff during Plaintiff's time in
I
J
Corporate Audit.
48. Plaintiff immediately re orted the foregoing to Mr. Donlon.

I.
49. In January 2002, Mr. Ddnlon asked Plaintiff to prepare a handwritten note
J
concerning the various matters in co orate Audit as to whieh Plaintiff had complained
I
and the retaliation to which Plaintiff had been subjected as a result of Plaintiff's
J
complaints to senior management insid and outside Corporate Audit.
50. At that time, Plaintiff alSo complained to David Slates, Vicc Presidcnt of
I
Manufacturing Finance, who reported to Mr. Donlon and had the responsibility of
�
managing the head count for Mr. Donlo 's entire finance area.
51. �
In February 2002, Plain iff received the worst pcrformance evaluation in
l
his carecr. The written evaluation had been prepared by Mr. Struve prior to his January
I
2002 rctirement and was delivered to Plaintiff by Mr. Buderath. At no time during the
: - 8-
have indicatcd that a significant pcrfo

l
"''' d;d M,. St,"" ro"""" "pro,;.. ny 00",,,"'';,, ro"'''''k 10 Pl,;,,;ff ili" w",Id
Jrnancc issue cxisted that could cffcet his annual

�
cvaluation and therefore perfonnanee- elated compensation (bonus, stock options and
merit raise)
52.
I
The 2001 perfonnance evaluation given in February 2002 was retaliatory.
53. Mr. Struve blamed Plai�tiff for his early retirement because he belicved
that Plaintiff had bcen rcporting Audit Dcpartmcnt improprieties to Mr. Donlon.
54. l
Mr. Struvc also retali ted against Plaintiff for repeatedly protesting
improper practices in the audit depa rL cnt, including its sanctioning thc secret bank
;
accounts used for bribing forcign government officials and the suppression of various
I
I
audits.
55. Plaintiff believed that Mr. Buderath was threatened by Plaintiffs

!
connection to Mr. Donlon, who was I highcr than Mr. Buderath in the organizational
I
structure, given Mr. Buderath's belief that Mr. Donlon had forced Mr. Struve to retire as
l
a result of Plaintiffs complaints about uditing and financial improprieties.
I
56. At the time that Mr. Buderath delivered the evaluation, he said, "your
I
friend Mr. Donlon bettcr save you this t me."
57. J
This declaration was a t reat, which Plaintiff reported to Mr. Donlon.
58. As J
a result of the fore oing, Mr. Donlon arranged for Plaintiffs return
transfer to the Finance Department. I

59. l
Mr. Donlon's interventi n prolonged Plaintiffs tenure until January 14,
l
2004, when Plaintiff was tenninated by Defendant.
I
60. Plaintiff was tenninated two (2) calendar weeks after Mr. Donlon's
I .,.
December 31,2003 retirement from Defendant.
61.
I
In an attempt to co nter the serious concerns raised by Plaintiff,
Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was responsible for a questionable accounting entry.
The investigation carried out by the Business Practices Office (which reports to Mr.
Buderath) made no effort to discover the accounting entry was a documented instruction
b
from Mr. Donlon to Plaintiffs im ediate supervisor Mr. Ed Labatch, then-Vice
J
�
President of Product Development Fi ance.
62. On or about Dccembe 17, 2003, Plaintiff was instructed by Noc1 Baril
1
(Human Resources Represcntative) and Mr. Labatch (plaintiffs then-supervisor) that
Plaintiff had to demote his SUbordinat Mr. Wayne Worlcy.
63. Mr. Baril and Mr. Labiltch told Plaintiff that the rcason for thc demotion
6
was that that Mr. Worlcy was "old" an "sick."
64. l
Mr. Worley was at the imc approximately 53 years old and had a history
of serious health-related issues.
65. l
Plaintiff vigorously P tested to both Mr. Baril and Mr. Labatch that their
decision was illegal inasmuch as Mr. r orley reported to Plaintiff and Plaintiff personally
knew that Mr. Worley had no pertormance deficiencics, much less any deficiency
sufficient to justify a demotion.
66. After much discussion, Plaintiff was permitted to offer to Mr. Worley only
an "opportunity" to transfer to a plant supervisor position in Toledo as an alternative to
demotion.
67. That offer, however, Was a sham because Plaintiff knew in advance that
Mr. Worley would not accept a positi l in Toledo.
- 10-
68. k; , ""II l
of tho ,om " of both MI, Bmil md MI, L""toh, PI""tiff
was forced to demote Mr. Worley on December 17, 2003.
I COUNT I
I
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
69. �
Plaintiff incorporates b reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as if fully set
I
I
forth at length herein.
70. Defendant violated the sarbaneS-OXley Aet when it discriminated against
J
Plaintiff by terminating him because e had reported a violation or suspccted violation of
l
law,including but not limited to the F reign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended.
71. �
As a direct and proxi ate result of Defendant's unlawful actions against
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuri �s and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
d
of earnings; loss of career opportuniti s; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation
and esteem in the community; and t t loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life,
b
including the opportunity to pursue th gainful occupation of choice; and will continue to
;
suffer these damages in the future. Aaditionally, Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees ana
costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter juagment
against Defendant including reinstat Jment with the same seniority status that Plaintiff
I
would have had but for the discrim nation or an award of front pay; back pay with
b
interest; compensatory damages inelU ing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such
I
other relief as the Court deems appropriate at the time of final judgment.
- 11-
COUNT II
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA
72. �
forth at length herein. I

73. I
Less than one month before his termination, Plaintiff complained to
I
Defendant that Wayne Worley was being discriminated against on the basis of his age.
I
74. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Wayne Worley was being discriminated
against on the basis of his age.
75.
I
Defendant discharged �Iaintiff.
I
76. Plaintiffs complaint of age discrimination was a motivating factor i n
�
Defendant's decision t o discharge Plai tiff.
77. !
Defendant's retaliatOry eonduct was willful.
WHEREFORE, l
Plaintiff res eetfUllY requests that this Court enter judgment
against Defendant including reinstat dment with the same seniority status that Plaintiff
I
would have had but for the discrimination or an award of front pay; back pay with
I
interest; compensatory damages including costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such
h
other relief as the Court deems approp ate at the time of final judgment.
- 12-
.COUNT III
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA
78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set
forth at length hcrein.
79. Lcss than one month before his termination, Plaintiff complained to
Defendant that Waync Worley was being discriminated against on the basis of a
pereeived disability.
80. Plaintiff reasonably belicved that Wayne Worley was being discriminatcd
against on thc basis of his record of a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities and/or because he was regarded as having such an
impairment.
81. Defendant discharged Plaintiff.
82. Plaintiffs complaint of disability discrimination was a motivating factor
in Defendant's decision to dischargc lilaintiff.
83. Defcndant's retaliatory conduct was committcd with malicc or with
rccklcss indiffercncc to Plaintiffs protected rights.
84. As a direct and proximate result of Dcfcndant's unlawful actions against
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
of earnings; loss of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation
and esteem in the community; and tllc loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life,
including the opportunity to pursue the gainful occupation of choice. Additionally,
Plaintiff has incurred attorncy fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff resp ectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
- 13 -
against Defendant including reinstate�ent with the same seniority status that Plaintiff
interest; compensatory damages including costs, and reasonable attomcy fees; and such
COUNT IV
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF E LCRA
85. Plaintiff incorporates by refcrence paragraphs I through 84 as if fully set
86. Less than a month before his tennination, Plaintiff complained to
Defendant that Wayne Worley was being discriminated against on the basis of his age.
87. Plaintiff reasonably bclieved that Wayne Worley was being discriminated
against on the basis of his age.
88. Defendant discharged �Iaintiff.
89. Plaintiffs complaint of age discrimination was a significant factor in
Defendant's decision to discharge Plai�tiff.
90. As a direct and proximate rcsult of Defendant's unlawful actions against
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
of earnings; loss of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation
and esteem in the community; and Uie loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life,
,
including the opportunity to pursue. the gainful occupation of choice. Additionally,
Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees an� costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court entcr judgment

!
against Dcfcndant including reinstatemcnt with the same seniority status that Plaintiff
,
- 14-
b
interest; compensatory damages inCIU ing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such
I
1 COUNT V
I
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN HANDICAPPERS' CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT ("HCRA")
i .
91. �
forth at length herein
92. Less than a month before his termination, Plaintiff complained to

I
Defendant that Wayne Worley was! being discriminated against on the basis of a
perceived handicap.
93.
I
Plaintiff reasonably believed that Wayne Worley was being discriminated
against on the basis of his record of l physical or mental impairment that substantially
J
limits one or more major life activitie andlor because he was regarded as having such an
impairment..
94. Defendant discharged I:laintiff.

i
95. Plaintifrs complaint of handicap discrimination was a significant factor in
l
Defendant's decision to discharge Plai tiff.
96. As J
a direct and proxi atc result of Dcfendant's unlawful actions against
b
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained injuri s and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
b
of earnings; loss of career oPPOrlUniti s; mental and emotional distress; loss of rcputation
J
and esteem in the community; and t c loss of the ordinary plcasures of everyday life,
Ii
including the opportunity to pursuc the gainful occupation of choice. Additionally,
Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees and costs.
- 15 -
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment
�
against Defendant including reinstate ent with the same seniority status that Plaintiff
I
would have had but for the discrim�nation or an award of front pay; back pay with
h
interest; compensatory damages inCIU ing eosts, and reasonable attorney fees; and such
�
other relief as thc Court deems approP iate at the time of final judgment.
I
COUNT VI
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY
97. l
96. Defendant through its agents, servants, or employees, violated public
policy cnshrined in thc Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and/or federal securities laws,
regulations and/or rules.
97. r
Plaintiff refused to Vi late these policies and reported the actions of
certain agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendant to Defendant's upper
management levels.
98. ,
Defendant discharged laintifT in whole or in part for refusing or failing to
violate the federal publie poliey enshrined in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and/or
1
federal seeurities laws, and for rcp rting the actions of the agents, servants, and/or
employees of Defendant to Defendant's upper management levels.
99. J
As a direct and proxi ate result of Defendant's unlawful actions against
Plaintiff, PlaintifT has sustained injUrt and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
J
of earnings; loss of career opportuniti s; mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation
J
and esteem i n the community; and t e loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life,
- 16-
including the opportunity to pursuc thc gainful occupation of choice. Additionally,
Plaintiff has incurrcd attorncy fccs and costs.
f
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff res cctfullY requests that this Court enter judgment
against Defcndant including reinstatement with the same seniority status that Plaintiff
I
would havc had but for the discrimination or an award of front pay; back pay with
6
interest; compcnsatory damages inCIU ing costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and such
h
other rclicf as the Court deems approp ate at the time of final judgmcnt.
By:
Sue Ellen Eisenberg (P25530)
Kathleen L. Bogas (P25164)
Suite 145
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Phone: 248-258-6080
Date: Septcmber 28, 2004
- 17 -
FROM P.3
u.s. EQUAL EN.lPL,OY'l\P:NT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Detroit District Office 477 M!<lllganAvcnue,l<oom 865
P,IfOjI, MI48226-!I704
(313) 226-4600
TIY (313)226-7599
FAX (3'13) 226-2778
une 30. 2004
David Bazzctta
48757 Elmhurst
�omb,�I48044
RE;. Bazzetta vs, Daimler Clnysler

Charge No; 230-A4-013S7
Dear Mr. Bazzetta:
'
This letter is sent to provide you with an oyerv:iew of the infonnation and evidence compiled
during the investigation of the above-referenced charge of discrimination. Based upon the
information listed below, the EEOC has d�term.ined that the processing of this matter will be
l
discontinued. This decision was made due to tqe fact that the information obtained during the
,investigation does not support a'conclusion that the statute(s) complained of haslhave been
: vi;�Iat�d. . '. .
' .
OnMarch .25,2004, you filed acbarge of discrimination
I "' .
The investigation of your charge has reveal L the following;
1. The investigation failed to p

factor of your discharge. In
L
�
duce eviden�e to show that retaliation was the
diti on. you never complained internally or opposed
discrimination. Moreover, yciu only stated that it was not right to terminate an
employee Who was old and sick. Furthennore, a lot of your allegations are non-
..
jurisdictional.
2.
3; Due to the evidence provided in this icase it is unlikely that further investigation into this
matter would result in a cause finding. Therefore, it appears that there is a legitimate
.
... . nondiscriminatory. reason for your alleged allegations.
'. I .'
Based on this evidence.. the EEOC is 'unable to conclude that retaliation. was a factor in the
Respondent's decision regarding you. Wheti the evidence fails to meet Ii "more likely than not"
stan£iard, the EEOC has n o choice but to dismiss the qharge. Further, .this dismissal does not
state that the Respondent was in compliance with the statutes,
,
. .
.
.
.
,
-1998 7,53PM FROM
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 20 of 26 P. 1
. It should be noted that the Dismissal and :Noticc of Rights which you. receive relatiog to your
charge will allow you. to proceed with yo� allegations in federal court, if you so desire. UPON
. RECEIPT OF THE DISl\USSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT
�
YOU FILE SUIT IN THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICT COURT wrrmN NINETY (90)
DAYS OF RECEIPT, FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR LOSS OF RIGRT
TO PROCEED IN COURT. .An informdtion sheet outlining your rights and filing procedures
will accompany the Dismissal and Notice MRights. Further, the EEOC will provide you, upon
4
request, with a list of attorneys who pra.cti e in the field of employment discrimination. Please
note that the EEOC does not recommend the att orneys nor make any representation regarding
their abilities.
Sincerely,
I j �-'
. p!::. " , .. - " ,
2004 11: 37
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS 313
AM FR CLARK HILL,Document 1 9SS
Filed8252 TO 912482589212
09/28/04 Page 22 of 26 P.02
CtARKffiLL
, pte
.'
"
,"
500 Woodward Avenue

: 8ui«3500
WiII!:>m G. Aslm.ids, Jr. Detd'l', Michigan 482Z6·J4.1S
(13) 965·8880 Td. (313) 965·8.100 r Fax (.>1.» 96;.6252
wasimakls@clarkhlll.com : www.d.rkhrll.""",
August 26, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE
Ms. Sue· Ellen Eisenberg
Eisenberg & Bogas, l>.c.
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite #145
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
Re: David Bazzetta
Dear Ms. Eisenberg:
DaimlerChrysler Corporation's Employee Dispute Resolution Process (EDRP) was

designed to provide a fair, timely, and [impartial method to resolve =J;lloyment disp ute s .
Important to the EDRP i s the concept that if the dispute is not resolved through the frrs t several
steps, then the dispute is submitted to binding arbitration for f'mal resolution. Arbitration under
the BDRP affords both parties the opportunity to discover facts supporting their respective
positions, as well as the opportunity to J;lresent their respective cases to an impartial, experienced
arbitrator. Arbitration under the EDRP [also offers a quick and cost-effective method of
resolving disputes, unlike the courts.
In your letter of June 28. 2004, you raised several objections to the EDRP on behalf of
Mr. Bazzetta and made clear that you did not believe that the EDRP was enforceable. (Notably.
DaimlerChrysler does not agree that the EDRP is unenforceable.)· But, despite your client's
apparent objection to the EDRP. he has proceeded with the EDRP, including submitting Part A
"Dispute Notice," and Part C "Employee Appeal For Corporate Review." In you letter of July
30, 2004, you requested that we "dispense with the Corporate Review stage of tlle EDRP and • . •
agree to proceed to arbitration." You also write in that July 30, 2004 letter. however, that you
"continue to preserve all of our objections to the company's EDRP procedure as outlined in our
letter of June 28, 2004." It is apparent to us [that you want to proceed with arbitration under the
EDRP, but reserve your ability to object to the enforceability of an unfavorable ruling. Such a
stance ignores and undermines the .central purpose of the EDRP to provide a fair, timely. and
impartial method to resolve employment disputes.
To sum uJ;l, in light of your objectionk. DaimlerChryslcr is unwilling to proceed further

with the EDRP (specifically including arbitration) and will not issue a response under Part D.
Nevenheless; we continue to believe that there are benefits to both parties i n bringing this matter
3326S58vl
167501097415
Vl!tTolt, Michigan. Birmingham., Mlcht�rtn i La.nsing, MicJtigan
I .
,
AM FR CLARK HI Document 1 P.03
2004 11:37
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Filed 8252 TO 912482589212
09/28/04 Page 23 of 26
Ms. Sue Ellen Eisenberg

August 26, 2004
Page 2
to a final resolution through binding arb·itrJltio·o. PI=o contact me if you wish to discuss tenns
of an agreement to arbitrate.
Very truly yours,

---
WGNbb
33zGS58vl
16750109741$
** TOTAL PRGE.03 **
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTE� DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID J. BAZZETTA,
0 L/ 7 3 �Co
Plaintiff,
Case No. ,... -
-v- Judge
Magistrate Judge
AVERN COBN.,,.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.,
a Delaware Corporation, MAGISTRATE JUD
GE DONALD A.
SCHEER
Defendant.
EISENBERG & BOGAS, p.e.

SUE ELLEN EISENBERG (P25530)
KATHLEEN L. BOGAS (P25164)
Suite 145
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 -
,--
Tel: 248-258-6080
Fax: 248-258-9212
=7< ...
I
U
:::;r- A
. � J:,;.
JURY DEMAND \0
Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by land through his attorneys, hereby demands a jury
trial on all issues so triable.
By:
Sue Ellen Eisenberg (P25530)
Kathleen L. Bogas (P25164)
Suite 145
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Date: September 28, 2004 Phone: 248-258-6080
- 18-
JS 44 1 1/99 CIVIL COVER SHEET COUNTY IN WHICH THIS ACTION AROSE: O akland
ORIGINAL
The JS-44 eMI cover shoot and the Information contained hereIn neither replace nor supp leme nt the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required
W �f g � (j 6
O
by law, excep t as prov[ded by local rules of court. This form, approved by the JudicIal Conference of the ta tatas ( t e 974 re 1!red
for use of the Clerk of Court for tha purpose of Initialing the civil docket sheet.
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

':I:: _ , '
David J. Bazzetta DaimlerChrysler Corporation
(b) County of Residence of First Us ted
.
(C) Marney's (Firm Name Address. and Telephon<> Number)
i.
AUomeys (I f Known
) {]OJ'-�'L0i.�:-" .ci\�'
Jl\\.,��. �
, ., ,
Sue Ellen Eisenberg (P25530) Kathleen L. Bogus (P25164)
:'i \I \\'"\r.,t;:�D
Eisenberg & Bogas PC Suite 145 33 Bloomfield Hills �Atl' (} G �\SlRJ:i 'E. \Juu7"
l
I
Parkwav. Bloomfield Hills. Ml 48304 (248) 258-5080

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placo an "X" In One Box 00'1) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Pisco an "X"1n One Box for PIalnIIff
and One Be»: for Defendanl)
~
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PLA DEF PLA DEF
o 1 U.S, Government � 3F eral Question Clllzon ofThls Slate

01 0 I Incorporated "r Principal Plaes
04 04
Ptalntlff (U.S, Government Not a Party) of Bus [ness In This Slate
o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Clllzen of Anolh.r 0 2 02 Incorporated and Principal 05 Os

Defendant (tndlcate CItizenship of Parties of Business 1n Another Stale
In Itam 111)
Clllzen or Subject of a 0 3 03 Foreign Nallon 06 06
Fomlan Coun!rv
IV, NATURE OF SUIT (PlAce nn "X" fn 000 Box Only )
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY nANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
0 1 1 0 Insumnca PERSONAl. INJURY Pi!RSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculture 0 422Appoal 26 USC 158 Cl 400 Slnls Reapportlonmant
0 120 Marlne o 31 0 Afrplane 0 362 Personal lnJury- 0 620 Other Food &. Drug Cl 41 0Antitrust
0 130 M il ler Act CJ 315Alrplane Product Moo. Ma lpracUce 0 625 Drug Related SelzlXe 0 423 WIthdrawal o 430 Banks and Banl<.lng
0 140 NegoUablo Instrument liability 0 3
135 /Jr':.'8.%l'WM@'- ofProplrly 21: 861 28 USC 157 Cl 450CommorcelC J C
..
0 150Recovery of 0 0 630 Uquor Laws o 460 Deportallon
Ovorpayment and 320 Assault Libel
Enforcemenc And Stander 0 0 PROPERTY ruGHTS
of Judgment 368 Asbestos Personal 640 R.R. & Trucil; Cl 470 Rackal t Inftusncad &
In;ury Product
0 Canupt Organizations
0 151 Medicare Ad 0 330 Federal Employe,.' Uability 650 A1rtlna Regs.
U._ 0 820 Copyrights CJ 810 So lechv o SafVico
0 152 Recovery of Defaulted 0 660 Occupational
S1udent l.oons 0 :l4O Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safoty/Health
0 630 Patent o 850 s� rl!ie,lCom mod 1!IeV
0 840 Trademark Excltange
(E)(cI. Veterans) 0 345 Marino Product o 370 Other Fraud 0 6000thor
0 Uabillty o 371 Truth In Lending o 875 Customer Challonue
153
a a
R&cov.tyor OV1tfPllYIOell!
of V ler n's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehlcla o 380 Other PSf'S{lnal LA!lOR SOCIAl. SECURITY 12 USC 3410
0 160 SlockhoIdm's' Sulls 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage o 891 Agricultural Acts
71 () FalrlAborStandartis 0 861 H IA(' 30.'1)
0 100 OlherConlract Product Liability 0 3S5 Property Damage
0
Aol 0 862 Clack Lung (923) o 692 EcooomJc SlabIlilatton Act
0 195 Contract Product UabiUly 0 360 Olher Personal
lnjury
?
Product Ua lIIty 0 720 Lnbor/Mgmt. 0 863 O!WClOIWW (405(g)) o 693 EnWonmenial Mailers
Relations o 894 Energy Allocation Ad
��Vo!lng,
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETIT IONS 0 864 5510 TIlle XVI o 89 5 Freedom of
0 730 LaborlMamt Reporting CI B65 RSI ('05(g)
r{..
lnfoonatlon Act
0 51 0 Motions to Vacale & Disclosure �
o 900 'ir:�Ic;: Under
0 210 Land Condemnation
0 220 Forocfosuro 1M 4 2 Employment Sentence : 0 740 Ra ilway Labor Act FEDERAL. TAXSUtTS
0 230 Re nt !.eas. & Ej\tC1ma

la 443 Housing! Habeas Corpus:' Equal Acetin toJUIUce
o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
0 240Tortl to Land AccommodaUoo. 0 530 Geneml ' 0 7DO Other Labor
or Defendant} CI 9"'...0 Constitutionality 0 r
0 245 Tort Produ ct LIability
0 290 All Other Reef Prnpeny
o 444Weff'are 0 535 Ooolh Penalty
D 440 Other CivU Rigllts 0 54() MandarmJS & Olhet 0
Llti gatofl
'rol Empt Ret. loc.
a
Slale St tu tes
o 871 IRS-Third Party CI 890 0Uler 51aMOI)' AcUona
0 550 Civil Rights! SecurllyAcI 26 USC 7609
0 555 Prison Condition '
,.....-v:-e�GlN (PLACE AN''X" IN ONE BOX ONLy) Appeel to
�
Transferred from District
05
another district
o 7 Judge from
�I(lal 02 Removed from 0
3
Remanded from !0 4 ��lnstated (spselfy)
o 6 Multi d l strl c l Magistrate
P roceedJ ng St ato Court Appellate Court ' UllOatlon
Reonon od
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Clm the u.s. eMlStatute underwtUchyoo nroflllng andwrlte brlaf stalement of cause.
Do not Cole jurfsdiclioaal slalulesunless dl,verslly.;
DiscriminationlRetaliation in volation orthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, ADEA; ADAct; Elliott-Larsen Civils Rights Act; Michigan
f..Tfln(fil":"Innpr� ("",vii 'R iO'ht� Art- finn rPtnHntol"V (if�,.hflfi'l'p in violfltfl'ln nfPtlhltr: i'nlirv
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF THIS ISA CLASS ACTIO
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 .
(See
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) Instructions):
IF ANY
DATE
I..............------�-------------------
c """'
," " ,
��? PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11
1.
.
Is this a case that has been p reviously dismissed? DYes
I f yes, give the following information: @
Cou� ________________________ -,�_______
Case No.: _______________________-,-_________
Judge: ________________________
�---------
Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously
�
2.
discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other
court, including state court? (Companion cases are.malters in which �
it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the. same
or related parties arc present and !the cases arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence.)
If yes, give the following information:
court: __
____________________ �________ __
Case No.: ___________________ -'-__________
Judge: ____________ .;..-

____
Notes:
-
-------- --------
-
-_._------ --+- --- -----_._._----- ---- _._
-
--

Bazzetta v. Daimler AG - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bazzetta v. Daimler AG - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS

RECEIPT Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 1 of 26

EISENBERG & BOGAS, P.C.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES Plaintiff David J. Bazzctta, by and through his attorneys,

Eisenberg & Bogas, P.C., and states as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

(Sarbanes-Oxley); 29 U.S.C. § 626(c) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); 42

discharge in violation of public policy. I

3. Defendant DaimlerChryslcr Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

DaimlcrChryslcr AG, a German corpo Ja tion.

5. DaimlerChrysler AG, J s an international company that is listed on the

the meaning of the Sarbanes-Oxley Ae . �

occurred within the State of Michigan .I

violation of the Elliott-Larsen Rights Act ("ELCRA"), and the Michigan

Handicappers' Civil Rights Act ("E[CLA").

I O. Defendant is an employer and Plaintiff was its employee within the

13. In accordance with 18 i

court oCthe United States.

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") a harge of retaliation in violation of the ADEA and

practices alleged in this claim.

Defendant's internal employee dispute resolution procedure or arbitrate his claims.

17. The amount in eontro\lersy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and

18. Plaintiff was hired by pefendarlt's predecessor, Chrysler Corp., in May

19. At all times relevant nel,C1<),Plaintiff performed his job diligently.

as Director of Corporate and Product Analysis in the Product Development

Finance Group at DaimlerChrysler ("DCC").

Manufacturing, Procurement & and Research & Development Audit, in the

then-Senior Vice President and at DCC. Mr. Donlon instructed Plaintiff to

join the Audit group.

23. In July 2001, during a Audit Executive Committee meeting in

Stuttgart, Germany, Plaintiff learned that business units within DaimlerChrysler AG

States securities laws.

24. During the discussion, flubertus Buderath, Vice President of Corporate

Audit (Stuttgart) for DaimlerChryslcr hG made a prescntation. Mr. Budcrath reported

28 . I��'" of �,re�;"g oo�= obo", th" Hlogal ,=tioo. M,. StMO

must rcmain in Corporate Audit."

obliged to do in his capacity as the head of Corporate Audit.

the issue to a person higher in the comrany's organization.

rcport the company's continuing violations of securities law.

Board of Managcmcnt of DaimlerChryslcr AG), who had ultimatc responsibility for

financial ovcrsight and compliance.

33. Plaintiff protestcd thc company's illegal conduct to Mr. Donlon.

34. Plaintiff also protested Mr. Struvc's failure to appropriately rcspond to

and the Securitics and Exchangc Commission.

36. . In a number of instanecs, including thc Prccious Metals Audit, the S%

these audits entirely or until they were dramatically changed.

37. Mr. Struvc's position as the hcad of DaimlerChrysler's Corporate Audit

approve an audit, then thc audit would not bc released.

regarding the Company's Financial Turnaround Plan (2001-2003)

Corporate Audit Departmcnt, however, had a functional reporting relationship to Mr.

43. In October 2001, at a dinncr mecting, Hubertus Buderath, Mr. Struvc's

Budcrath's ehoicc to head up the Auburn Hills Audit group.

45. At the annual Audit D �Partmcnt mccting in Lamerbuckcl, Germany in

48. Plaintiff immediately re orted the foregoing to Mr. Donlon.

have indicatcd that a significant pcrfo

Jrnancc issue cxisted that could cffcet his annual

55. Plaintiff believed that Mr. Buderath was threatened by Plaintiffs

transfer to the Finance Department. I

December 31,2003 retirement from Defendant.

Plaintiff had to demote his SUbordinat Mr. Wayne Worlcy.

of serious health-related issues.

sufficient to justify a demotion.