- 4 -
During 2000, petitioner was a computer hardware salesperson
for TIG. Petitioner signed a “formal offer of employment” on May
3, 2000, to indicate his acceptance of employment. An
“Employment and Commission Agreement” (employment agreement)
between TIG and petitioner was executed by petitioner on May 9,
2000.3 Petitioner initialed the lower right corner of every page
on a space entitled “Employee” and signed the last page of the
agreement. The employment agreement provides in pertinent part:
1. Employment. Employer engages Employee to serve as
an Account Executive, and Employee hereby accepts such
an engagement upon the terms and conditions set forth
herein.
2. Term. This Agreement is for an initial period of
one (1) year but is terminable by either party, with or
without cause, at any time with or without notice.
This Agreement will continue to govern the employment
relationship for additional one (1) year terms unless a
new agreement is negotiated and executed.
3. Duties. Employee shall perform such duties as are
customarily performed by an Account Executive, and such
3Petitioner, in the joint stipulation, objected to the
admission into evidence of Exhibit 26-R, the unemployment
agreement and related employment documents, from TIG on the
grounds of: (1) Lack of foundation; (2) hearsay; (3) Fed. R.
Evid. 106; (4) petitioner lacks personal knowledge of their
creation; and (5) respondent has failed to identify the
individual who allegedly created the documents. Respondent
obtained the documents from TIG pursuant to a subpoena duces
tecum.
The Court concludes that Exhibit 26-R does not lack
foundation. The documents are business records, some bear
petitioner’s signature or initials, and are admissible. The
Court concludes that the documents are complete. Petitioner’s
remaining arguments are meritless. Accordingly, Exhibit 26-R is
admissible.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007