The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98-03114 J I I I / l f r / , ~ .~ ....... . . .;) ... '-J ")- ..... ..... '~ 'Y) . 0... 0"- . 'F 6. During discussions rcgurding the terms of employmcnt, betwccn thc pluintiff ulld S"bastiun Triscuri, Prcsidcnt of Triscari Pl'Oductions, amI TOIl1 McCue, GI~nel'Ul Managcr for Triscuri Productions, the following representations were made by Triscuri and McCue, both ucting us duly uuthorizcd officers, agents and I'eprescntutives of the defendalllund engugcd in its business und ucting within thc scope of their l:mployment and authority: (I) That Plaintiff would bc compensated by the Company for her time worked on un hourly basis; and (2) That Plaintiff would also bc paid a 15% commission by the Company for any revenue she genel'llted for Tl'iscari Pl'Oductions; and (3) That Pluintiff's commissions would continue to be paid by the Compuny on revenue genel'uted by accounts she brought to Triscari Productions even after her employment ceased, 7. At that time, and bused upon the representations made by Tl'iscal'i and McCue, the duly uuthorized officers, agents and representutives of the Defendunt Compllny, the Plaintiff uccepted the offer of employment with the Company liS described by Det'endllnt's representatives, 8, The Plaintiff began her employment with the compllny in September 1994. 9, In September 1994, Plaintiff brought the Pennsylvllnill Stale Education Association (PSEA) to Defendllnt Company liS a client. 10, In September 1995, Plaintiff left the employ of Defendant Company. 11, At the time of her resignation, it is believed IInd therefore IIverred that Defendant Company had received in excess of $100,000 liS II result of work done for PSEA, 12, It is believed and therefore uverred lhut Defendant Company has received In excess of $150,000 as a result of Plaintiff's efforts in bringing the PSEA account to Defendant Company, 13. Prior to her resignation, Plaintiff had been paid one commission check by Defendant Compllny In the amount of $200, 14, At the time of her resignation, Defcndunt Company paid Plaintiff un lIdditionul commission check in the amount of $SOO, 15, The totlll commission paid to date is $700, 16, At the time of her resignation, Scbastian Triscari, a duly authorized officer, agent and representative of the Defendant Company acknowledged to Plaintiff that she was owed udditionul commissions us a result of Plaintiff's efforts in bringing the PSEA account to Defendant Company. 17. Plaintiff ha~ demanded puyment from Defendant Company of the unpaid commissions on numerous occasions including but not limited to September 1995, March 1997, June 1997, and February 1998, COUNT I.. BREACH OF CONTRACT 18, The Plaintiff hereby incorporutes by reference each and every allegation as set forth in Parugraphs I through 17 as if same were fully sct fOl'th herein, 19, The failure of Defendant Compuny to pay PllIintlff the commissions duc undcr the terms of their cmployment contract was In hrclich of the employmentllgrecment descrihed IIbove, 20. The flllllll'e and rcfusal hy the Defendant Company to honor lInd comply with Its agreemcn: and with its promises to thc Plaintiff constitute knowing, wilful, and bad fllith: (a) brellch of lIn oral contl'Uct of employmcnt betwccn the Dcfcndant Company and the Plaintiff to employ the Plaintiff as lIn Associate Pl'Oduccr and pay her, in addition to her regular wage, a 15% commission on any husiness she gcncrated, (b) breach of an implied ohligation of the Defendant Company to employ the Plaintiff undcr the tcrms previously dcscrihed so thaI the PllIintlff WllS induced to actIo her detriment in rclia!1ce upon Dcfendant Company's promiscs and representations and to thc Company's unjust cnrichment. (c) hreach of un implied obligation not to deny or foreclosc the promiscd employment rclationship to the Plaintiff which it induced thc Plaintiff to accept, on the basis of its failure to perform its obligations undcr the contrllct when Plaintiff hud already performcd. (d) breach of an Implied ohligalion to deal with thc Plaintiff fairly und in good faith by not arbitrarily and capriciously rcfusing to perform its obligations under the contract when Plaintiff had already performcd. 21, As a direct and proximate rcsult of thc foregoing brcachcs of cxpress and implied contractual obliglltions by thc Defcndant Company, the Plaintiff has hccn injurcd and damaged by loss of her commissions, liS well us leglll fees lIIal costs associuted with this lawsuit, WHEREFORE, Plllinliff respectfully requests thallhis Honorublc Court cnter judgmenl in her fllvor Inlln umount in excess of $25,000 aguinst Defendunt Compuny for compensutory damuges, interest, eosts of suit, allo/'l1eys fecs, and such other rclicf us is just and propCI'. COlINl' II -- DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE 22. The Pluinliff herehy incorpol'Utes hy reference ellch und every ullegulion us set forth in Puragraphs I through 21 us if sume were fully set forlh herein. 21IJpon iulill'lllution and helief, the Compuny, through its duly uuthorized officers, IIgents and reprcsentutivcs, or allY one of them. us ucting within the scope of Ihelr employment and authority, dellhel'lltcly mude and/or permilled to bc made reprcsentlllions to the Plaintiff during Seplember 1994 and lutcr reitel'Uted over th(~ course of Plulntiff's employment with Dcfendant Com puny which Ihey knew or should huve known wcre !'ulsc und mislellding as follows: (I) Thllt Ihe Company would pay Plulntiff cOlllmisslons utthe I'Ute of 15% on revenue genernled 1'01' the Compuny hy the Pluinliff while she WllS in the employ of Defcndllnt Compuny; (2) Thlltthe CompllllY would continue to PllY commissions 1I1thc rate of 15% on revenue ge,nerated for the Compllny by accounls brought tolhe Company hy the PllIlntiff even <!ftCI' PllIintiff wus no longer employed by Defendant Company. 24, Upon information 1I11d heileI', it is 1I11eged thut the represcntations described in pafUgraph 23 uhove were flllsc lInd mislelldlng, und werc intended to be such by Sebllstllln Trlscllri with the eXfl\'ctution thutthey would be communicuted to the Plaintiff und would Influence her conduct, in thut one or morc of the uhove nlll1led officers, agents und representatives of thc Compuny: (1) knew or helievcd tlmtlhe mutters werc I1plus they were representcd to be: 01' (2) Intended to disllvow thc promises und representations made; 01' (3) did not havc thc confidencc in the uccul'ilcy of the reprcsentutiol1s thut were mllde, permitted lInd implied. 25. The p1111ntiff was induced by and justifiuhly relicd upon the misrepresentutions described In parllgraph 23 lIbove In uccepting the employmcnt offercd by the Corn puny 26, The Plaintiffs justlfiuhle reJiunce upon the misrepresentations described in paragraph 23 above, was u direct and proximute cause in determining the Plaintiffs uctions which resulted in her injuries, losses und dumages, 27. As a direct lInd proximllte result of the Company's misreprcsentatlons and the Pluintiffs reliance on them, the Plaintiff hus been injured und dumaged by loss of commissions due and hus suffered and continues to suffer severc emotionul distress, mental suffering, emhurrassment, humiliution, anguish, und unxiety as a dlrcct and proximute rcsult of these misrepresentations, und her reliunce on them. WHI<~REFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests thutthis Honol'llb1e Court enter judgment jn her fllvor in lIn amount in excess of $25,000 agllinst Defcndunt Company for compenslltory