- 3 -
Some of petitioner’s loan customers competed directly with firms
and enterprises of MG. During 1986 and 1987, MBL employees asked
petitioner to provide confidential information about those
specific loan customers. Adhering to his ethical and legal
duties, confidentiality agreements and BCal policy, petitioner
refused.
Subsequent to his refusal, MBL employees gave petitioner
negative performance evaluations and attacked his integrity.
This situation grew so intolerable for petitioner that on
December 30, 1987, 1 day before his pension vested, petitioner
was forced to leave his job at BCal.
Before and after petitioner left his job, he experienced
insomnia, headaches, stomach problems, back and neck pain, and
gum disease. Petitioner did not consider himself disabled, nor
did he apply for disability insurance benefits. After he left
BCal, petitioner actively searched for employment. He
distributed resumes, went for job interviews, started businesses,
and offered and performed consulting services.
On November 15, 1989, almost 2 years after petitioner was
forced to leave BCal, petitioner retained the law firm of Merten
& Associates to file a lawsuit against BCal and MBL. In so
doing, petitioner signed an agreement entitled “Contingent Fee
Retainer Agreement” (Fee Agreement I). Fee Agreement I provided
that petitioner’s attorneys would receive a percentage of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011