- 2 -
1999 Federal income tax. The issue is whether petitioners may
exclude from gross income under section 104(a)(2) payments
received by petitioner Emanoil Gantea (petitioner) from his
employer pursuant to a settlement agreement. Petitioners resided
in Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania, at the time the petition was filed.
Background
Petitioner was employed with the Dana Corporation (Dana).
Petitioner experienced a work-related injury. Dana sponsored a
program for employees who suffered injuries and are disabled, to
some extent, as a result of work-related injuries. Employees in
the so-called Restricted Duty Program were required to report to
work and remain in a restricted duty area for the entire work
day. Participants in this program were assigned there in lieu of
receiving workers’ compensation benefits.
On March 24, 1995, petitioner, as a member of a class action
suit, filed a complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
of Berks County alleging three separate causes of action. First,
petitioner alleged that Dana violated the Pennsylvania Wire
Tapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. sec. 5725 (West 2003), by surreptitiously placing a
video camcorder in the restricted duty area for audio and visual
surveillance of the employees. Second, petitioner alleged that
Dana invaded petitioner’s privacy when Dana posted on a bulletin
board at Dana’s employee information centers documents containing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011