- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011