- 3 -
(APV), terminated his employment. The complaint also alleged
that, at the time of his discharge, petitioner was 45 years old,
held the position of master scheduler, was earning $33,480 per
year, and had been employed by APV for 21 years. It further
alleged that, around the time of petitioner’s discharge, APV did
not terminate younger employees also acting as master schedulers
but did terminate other employees over age 40.
Prior to filing the DILHR complaint, petitioner and 16 other
former employees of APV (the class) retained the law firm of
Fox & Fox, S.C. (Fox & Fox), to seek redress against APV. In
July 1991, petitioner executed a contingent fee agreement with
Fox & Fox that provided for legal representation in his case
against APV. Each member of the class entered into an identical
contingent fee agreement with Fox & Fox.
The contingent fee agreement was a form contract prepared
and routinely used by Fox & Fox; the client’s name was manually
typed in, but the names of Fox & Fox and APV had already been
included in preparing the form used for all the class members.
Fox & Fox would have declined to represent petitioner if he had
not entered into the contingent fee agreement and agreed to the
attorney’s lien provided therein.
The contingent fee agreement provided in relevant part:1
1 The portions of the Agreement not quoted are secs. “I.
INTRODUCTION”, “IV. THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES WHERE THERE IS A
SEPARATE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES”, and “V. EXPLANATION OF FEE
(continued...)
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