I seem to remember a certain Seinfeld episode sparked a lawsuit a few years ago. I didn't watch Seinfeld at the time; it wasn't until after the series had ended that I started watching the syndicated episodes, and I kind of vaguely remember hearing about this case in the news some time ago.
As I recall, the episode in question was the one in which Jerry's girlfriend's name sounded like the name of a part of the female anatomy. If my clouded recollection of what little bits and pieces of this story I do vaguely remember is accurate, an employee of Miller Brewing Company got into trouble for harassing a female coworker who happened to have the same name as Jerry's girlfriend on the show. This is about all I can remember about it. Does my memory serve me right on this? Could anyone here fill me in on the details of the lawsuit? Which side ultimately won the case? Did Miller Brewing take any disciplinary action on the matter?
Sorry to bother everyone with this, and for all the run-on sentences, but this curiosity is just driving me nuts!
The views expressed in the above post are those of myself, and myself only.They do not necessarily represent the views of my internet provider, or of this newsgroup.This newsgroup and my provider are not responsible for any claims made in the above post.
On 17 Oct 2004 07:32:07 GMT, [email] (GBPackrGop) wrote:
Episode was: "The Junior Mint"
====================================================
Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Co. (7/97)
Jerold J. Mackenzie was fired from his job with the Miller Brewing Co. in March 1993 for "poor managerial judgment" triggered by allegations that he sexually harassed a coworker by discussing an episode of Seinfeld, the popular TV sitcom, with a female coworker. In the episode, Seinfeld tries to guess the name of his date, which he knows rhymes with a part of the female anatomy (her name was Delores).
Mackenzie alleged that his firing was improper, the coworker was not harassed and the company was looking for an excuse to terminate him. He sued Miller Brewing Co., Patricia Best, the alleged harassed coworker, and Robert Smith, former Vice President of Miller Brewing Co. and Mackenzie's former supervisor.
Climbing the Ladder Mackenzie joined Miller in 1974 when he was about 31 years old. He started in what is referred to as a "grade level 7" job and was first assigned to Montana. Mackenzie uprooted his family in six moves around the country. He moved up the corporate ladder fairly quickly, jumping from grade level 7 in 1974 to grade level 14 by 1982. (By comparison, grade levels 15, 16 and 17 were director-level positions; grade level 18 was vice president. The Chairman's position is a grade level 27.)
As a grade level 14, Mackenzie was assigned to corporate headquarters in Milwaukee. His job was to keep the company's distributors happy. Distributors are not employees of Miller; rather, they purchase beer from the company. Downsizing and Mergers In 1984, about two years after Mackenzie was promoted to grade level 14, Miller apparently started to downsize. Mackenzie had been managing three departments: distributor services, field sales services and sales development. The 1984 reorganization merged two of Mackenzie's departments, field sales services and distributor services.
In 1987, the company restructured the sales administration department again. Mackenzie continued to manage distributor and field sales services. Sales development, however, was assigned to a new person, William Glickert, the market development manager. Mackenzie claims that Smith, his boss, told him that his grade level 14 position was not affected by the 1987 reorganization.
There were three additional reorganizations of the sales administration department in 1988, 1989 and 1990. By 1990, Mackenzie continued to manage distributor and field sales services but now reported to Paul Zielinski, director of the new distribution management department. As it turned out, in 1989, Mackenzie's position was downgraded to a grade level 13 but Mackenzie was not told about it at the time.
A Memo, A Revelation On August 17, 1992, Mackenzie was advised for the first time his grade level 14 position had become a grade level 13 under a reorganization three years earlier. He also learned that his position was "grandfathered" in 1989 -- in other words, although Mackenzie continued to receive the benefits of a level 14 employee, his successor would rank grade level 13. Mackenzie was advised in a memo that as of January 1, 1993, all positions that had been "grandfathered" in 1989 would no longer receive the perks of the higher level. For Mackenzie, that meant he would lose such perks as first class travel, executive dining and special events tickets.
This also did not bode well for Mackenzie's future at Miller -- it was virtually impossible to jump from a level 13 to a level 15 position. Mackenzie had been striving for a director position at level 15.
When Mackenzie confronted Smith about the change, Smith said he thought he had told Mackenzie years earlier that his position was "grandfathered" in 1989. Mackenzie claims that Smith assured him the position was not affected by the 1987 reorganization.
A New Opportunity Also, in 1992, as a result of a project Mackenzie worked on, the Boston Consulting Group, hired by Miller, recommended that a new department be established and that Mackenzie be appointed director. On October 16, 1992, the president of Miller and a steering committee agreed to the recommendation.
However, Mackenzie claims that Smith strongly objected to the recommendation. As a result, the president of Miller requested additional time to consider the matter. Eleven days later, Mackenzie was placed on special assignment and relieved of management responsibilities for distributor and field sales services. In January 1993, Mackenzie was assigned to report to David Goulet, the sales administration and analysis director.
The Seinfeld Conversation On the morning of March 19, 1993, Mackenzie was talking to coworker Patricia Best, the distributor services manager, about a Seinfeld episode that aired the night before. Mackenzie asked her if she saw it; she did not.
The thrust of Mackenzie's conversation with Best was that he was incredulous and outraged that the show had passed the censors. He told Best that Seinfeld's date had a name that rhymed with a part of a woman's anatomy and asked her to guess what rhymed with Delores. Best could not. About an hour after the conversation, Mackenzie, Best and another coworker, Robert Davies, discussed the show again. All expressed surprise that the show was not censored.
Mackenzie apparently did not want to use the term "clitoris," so he copied the page from the dictionary with the definition and showed it to Best. Upon seeing the term, Best said she did not want to discuss it further.
Confrontation That night, Best got married and was out of work for a long weekend. When she returned to work on Tuesday, March, 23, she reported the conversation she had had with Mackenzie to Goulet. Goulet said that she had three options: confront Mackenzie herself about her discomfort, let Goulet confront Mackenzie, or report it to Personnel. Best opted to confront Mackenzie.
On March 24, 1993, Best told Mackenzie he had stepped over the line with the Seinfeld discussion. Mackenzie apologized but expressed disbelief that someone who uses the vulgar language Best does would be offended. Best reported the conversation to Goulet and Goulet chose to go to Personnel immediately.
The following day, Mackenzie was "invited" to Miller's law library. Goulet was there along with someone from Personnel and two attorneys -- George Whyte (of the firm that represents Miller) and Albert Butler (in-house counsel). Mackenzie claims that he had no idea why he was there. Whyte questioned Mackenzie and asked whether his conversation with Best about the Seinfeld episode was appropriate in the workplace. An hour later, he was escorted by his supervisor, Goulet, out of the building and told never to return.
A Short-Lived Consultant About a month and a half after he was fired, Mackenzie started to work indirectly for Miller via a corporate organization consultant, Michael J. Mazzoni, who was retained by Miller. Apparently Miller wanted Mackenzie to continue a project that was ongoing at the time of the firing. Miller, however, preferred that Mackenzie have no direct contact with the company. Mackenzie accepted the consulting role for six to seven months.
Meanwhile, Mackenzie contacted an attorney about filing suit against Miller. Once Miller learned that Mackenzie was contemplating a suit, Mackenzie was let go from the consulting contract.
According to Mackenzie's attorney, Mackenzie has applied for work at 71 places throughout the U.S. but has failed to get work and has been labeled a "pervert."
Causes of Action Mackenzie sued two people and one entity. The defendants were Robert Smith, Patricia Best and the Miller Brewing Co. There were three causes of action to this complaint:
* Intentional misrepresentation. This is against Miller Brewing Co. and Smith for the alleged misrepresentation in 1989 that Mackenzie's grade 14 level position was not downgraded to a grade level 13.
* Tortious interference with prospective contract. This was against Smith for the alleged intentional and improper interference in October 1992 with Mackenzie's contractual relationship with Miller. At that time, Mackenzie claims, he was being considered for a position as director of a new department for the "distributor performance initiative." Mackenzie claims that Smith induced Miller not to give the "distributor performance initiative" permanent status with Mackenzie as its director.
* Tortious interference with contract. This was against Best for allegedly inducing Miller to terminate Mackenzie through fraudulent misrepresentation of the March 19, 1993 conversation she had with Mackenzie about the Seinfeld episode. Mackenzie claims that Best was not sincere when she reported that she was uncomfortable with, and consequently sexually harassed by, the conversation.
Damages Mackenzie sought damages for lost salary and benefits as well as for the salary he would have received had he become a director. He asked for $9.2 million in compensatory damages.
The Verdict Jurors awarded Mackenzie $26.6 million on July 15, 1997. Mackenzie was awarded $24.5 million from Miller Brewing Co., $1.5 from former co-worker Best and $601,500 from former supervisor Smith.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:21:48 GMT, [email] (TheNewsGuy(Mike)) wrote:
Lawyer Boyle's integrity being put on trial Last Updated: June 4, 2002 Spivak & Bice
The $26 million "Seinfeld case" verdict was a lawyer's dream come true. But now, the case is starting to look like lawyer Gerry Boyle's worst nightmare.
First, the Court of Appeals tossed the record-setting award, a decision that was upheld by the state Supreme Court.
That was bad - really bad - for Boyle, but it's getting worse. The integrity of Milwaukee's best-known barrister is being put on trial.
According to a recently amended malpractice lawsuit against Boyle and attorney Michael Whitcomb by the bankruptcy trustee for Jerold Mackenzie, Boyle's client in the case:
* Boyle, along with his client, arranged for a $500,000 line of credit from local venture capitalist/sports agent Joe Sweeney back in 1997, with Sweeney receiving at least double his money back if Boyle settled or won the case.
The suit alleges that it was improper for Boyle to enter a business deal with a client, who put up property as part of the collateral. Boyle argued Tuesday that there was nothing improper and that the money was to cover the cost of the appeal and to help out Mackenzie.
But Sweeney said it was Boyle who was desperate for cash. "I didn't delve into it. He said, 'I'm in a little trouble. Could I borrow some money?' " Sweeney recalled Tuesday.
The suit says Mackenzie received $105,000 from the loan, and Boyle got $295,000. Sweeney later took Mackenzie's properties, and Sweeney said Boyle paid off the debt, plus interest.
* The Sweeney loan came as Boyle was getting ready to tap a variety of sources for money, offering, in effect, to sell them each a piece of the Seinfeld verdict - a deal that was to be pitched as a no-risk investment.
"If we get nothing, and the prospect of that is absolutely nil," Boyle vowed to repay all of the investors' principal, plus interest, he wrote in a November 1997 letter. "You can be assured that I will settle this matter before I end up with nothing but a half million dollar debt."
Boyle said he never mailed the letter because he secured the money from Sweeney.
* Contrary to their public statements, Miller Brewing lawyers offered to settle the suit for $3 million. Boyle rejected it - even though prominent Madison attorney Brady Williamson had provided Boyle with a legal analysis that the case had little chance of surviving an appeal.
"I believe that if your offer were more realistic than $3 million, I would then be inclined to tell Jerry (Mackenzie) and (fellow attorney) Mike Whitcomb that we should make a counter-offer, but under the circumstances, with the numbers presently at $30 million, there is no way we can counter," Boyle wrote in April 7, 1999, letter to Quinn Martin, a Quarles & Brady rainmaker who represents Miller.
* Miller general counsel William Schmus reiterated the $3 million offer to Mackenzie in a private meeting between the two in November 2000, about three weeks before the case was argued before the Supreme Court.
The suit says Mackenzie told Schmus he couldn't afford to take the deal because half of the winnings would go to his lawyers, $138,000 would be needed to cover legal expenses and $900,000 would have to go to Sweeney to pay off Mackenzie's portion of the loan.
"Mr. Schmus suggested that if that was the case, his attorneys should consider cutting their fees," the suit says.
* In the weeks before they were to plead the case to the Supreme Court - a time when lawyers normally burn the midnight oil prepping themselves - Boyle and Whitcomb were firing off faxes and letters in a fight over fees.
Unless he received what he believed was his fair cut of any settlement, the suit says, Boyle threatened to break any confidentiality agreement that Miller would demand. Whitcomb proposed that he receive 25% of any settlement, with Boyle taking 24%. Boyle called the deal "stupid and absurd" and vowed to stop talking to Whitcomb. A few days later - just six days before the Supreme Court arguments - Boyle sent a Thanksgiving letter to Mackenzie, advising him not to trust Whitcomb.
"It's astonishing to me that in my hour of greatest need and support from my attorneys, I find myself in the middle of a feud over the distribution of settlement funds, which, at this time, are exactly zero," a frustrated Mackenzie wrote in a fax to both attorneys.
Both Whitcomb and Boyle dismissed the notes as a heat-of-the-moment spat.
In a lengthy interview, Boyle repeatedly denied that he had done anything wrong in the Mackenzie suit, even suggesting that he was the sole victim in the case.
"I'm the only one taking a bath on this one," he said, referring to his out-of-pocket expenses and the cost of the Sweeney loan.
As for the allegations made in the suit, Boyle called them "garbage," adding that his only role in the case was to argue the case at trial, where he said he did his job by winning a $26 million jury verdict. He went on to call his bankrupt former client "greedy" and an "ingrate" who refused to settle for less than $15 million.
Whitcomb even has a letter from Mackenzie showing the fired Miller Brewing exec directed his lawyer to seek around $15 million. "We feel very positive about the Supreme Court and expect them to rule in our favor," Mackenzie and his wife wrote in December 2000.
But John Cabaniss, the lawyer bringing the suit, still puts the blame on Boyle and Whitcomb for not collecting at least a few million for their client.
"Want to show me another lawyer in town who wouldn't have beaten his client up and said, 'Take it, you idiot?' " Cabaniss said. "My burden is . . . to prove that not for Boyle's breach of duties to his client, there probably would have been a settlement."
[Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 5, 2002.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks for the response. It was indeed interesting. That whole story came about from an episode of a show that was supposed to be about nothing!
And I must correct a factual error on my part. In my original post, I inaccurately stated that the female coworker had the same name as Jerry's girlfriend in the episode. Seems I was mistaken.
Oh well, mea culpa, and errare humanum est.
The views expressed in the above post are those of myself, and myself only.They do not necessarily represent the views of my internet provider, or of this newsgroup.This newsgroup and my provider are not responsible for any claims made in the above post.