Michael G. Kroposki - Page 3

                                                - 3 -                                                 

                  By letter dated March 9, 1992, from Boehringer (the March 9                         
            letter), petitioner was notified that, effective May 4, 1992, he                          
            would be permanently laid off as part of a restructuring within                           
            the company (the restructuring).  Petitioner was one of a number                          
            of Boehringer employees laid off on account of the restructuring                          
            (the laid off employees).  The laid off employees were offered a                          
            package of benefits.  Among those benefits was a payment entitled                         
            “special severance payment”.  The amount of the special severance                         
            payment offered to a particular laid off employee was determined                          
            pursuant to a generally applicable schedule that took into                                
            account years of service and base salary.  The amount of the                              
            special severance payment offered to petitioner was $112,542.21.                          
            Petitioner was given until April 30, 1992, to accept that special                         
            severance payment by signing an agreement entitled “separation                            
            agreement” (the separation agreement).  Petitioner did not sign                           
            the separation agreement and, as a result, did not receive the                            
            special severance payment offered to him.  Petitioner retained a                          
            lawyer who wrote to Boehringer on April 23, 1992 (the April 23                            
            letter), stating that Boehringer’s termination of petitioner’s                            
            employment violated the “Age Discrimination in Employment Act                             
            (‘ADEA’), 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.” (ADEA).  The April 23 letter                           
            invites settlement but threatens litigation “under the ADEA and                           
            any other theories that are meritorious.”  By counsel, Boehringer                         
            responded to the April 23 letter with a letter of its own, dated                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011