- 3 -
these allegations. Petitioner was instructed not to discuss the
investigation with anyone and to continue normal business
operations. At the conclusion of its investigation, Okabena
determined that sufficient evidence existed to conclude that
petitioner had conducted himself improperly, that he no longer
could manage the employees effectively, and that he was subject
to termination.
On the morning of April 9, 1993, petitioner retained the
legal services of James Roth to represent petitioner in
connection with the investigation of the alleged sexual
harassment. At a conference that morning, petitioner and Mr.
Roth discussed the allegations against petitioner and a possible
resolution of them. After this meeting, petitioner submitted a
handwritten letter of resignation to Mr. Lueck.
Over the weekend of April 10 and 11, 1993, petitioner worked
at Okabena to review tax files and clean up his desk. On April
10, 1993, petitioner and Mr. Lueck discussed petitioner’s
situation in petitioner’s office at Okabena. During the
discussion, Mr. Lueck informed petitioner that petitioner’s
resignation was unnecessary and that he should reconsider it.
On April 12, 1993, petitioner met with Mr. Lueck and
withdrew his resignation. At the same time, petitioner requested
an employment contract with Okabena and submitted a proposed
handwritten employment contract for consideration. At this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011