- 3 -
a list of all Dana employees participating in the Restricted Duty
Program. These documents also disclosed each employee’s name,
job description, and the specific nature of their injury or
illness. Third, petitioner alleged “Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress” when Dana posted, at various locations of the
workplace, cartoons, photographs, and other materials intended to
ridicule, harass, and intimidate employees in the Restricted Duty
Program.
In 1999, petitioner and Dana entered into a settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement stated in pertinent part:
* * * [Petitioner], in a three count Complaint, alleged that
Dana had violated * * * [his] rights under various
Pennsylvania statutes and its common laws including, (i)
violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Act (“Wiretap Act”), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. ��
5701-26 (Supp. 1995); (ii) the common law tort of invasion
of privacy; and (iii) the common law tort of intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
* * * * * * *
1. Payment. Dana will pay a total of thirty
thousand, two hundred and eleven dollars and sixty-six cents
($30,211.66), in exchange for the withdrawal with prejudice
of * * * [petitioner’s] civil action against Dana. Payments
will be made by check, jointly payable to * * * [petitioner]
and his attorney * * *. This amount includes any and all
payment on account of * * * [petitioner’s] attorneys fees.
* * * * * * *
11. Taxes and Reporting. Dana will issue a federal
tax form 1099. As there is no claim for back wages by * * *
[petitioner], Dana will not withhold any taxes on the
settlement proceeds. The parties agree, however, that the
absence of tax withholdings by Dana does not mean that a
taxation authority or authorities may not subsequently treat
the proceeds as taxable income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011