- 19 - personal injury. Rather, he received his recovery on account of the Defendants' alleged violation of the RICO Act leading to his discharge. Recovery based on such allegations could only be for injury to petitioner's business and property. The amount of the recovery is independent of the existence or extent of any personal injury that petitioner may have suffered. See Commissioner v. Schleier, supra. Petitioner argues that the RICO Act was meant to expand the remedies available to claimants and does not limit an individual's cause of action. Although this assertion may be true, the Plaintiffs in the class action did not, in fact, seek to establish any personal injury, but limited their remedy to that provided by the RICO Act.6 Cf. United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992) (holding that the taxpayer's recovery under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 253, was not excludable--the underlying action not constituting a tort-type claim--even though taxpayer had other tort-type remedies available for the wrongful discrimination against him.) Secondarily, the Complaint alleged interference with the class members' prospective economic advantage as employees. 6 As we have already noted, we do not think that the Plaintiffs actually sought to establish personal injury. The Complaint merely mentions "emotional distress" without any supporting factual allegations within the context of a lengthy (90-page) and carefully drafted complaint.Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011