The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-00383 s ~. ,. , .\ Itl J Vi g c"" ~ (" _it" r! , 99 ocr "~I CUM.,.. ''-'.-i' I'i(i\i':'/")}Ot' ! .,,' 6= ":ll /." !,u(!) (-,<' [L~ (,:.', (.'lJt:" 7 ' C'( I!" , 01 ...:I r: ,. ('-:} ~ir: ;'~ '" , .. a.~; ;'1;: t_..;): Cf, (\1 0, f.lJ v', 0, fn );;.:/ j-(;:? -,--,. iiG) nre. , ;?J ':J li.i! /.1 l) " 1//1/, I " \ ., ~~, l'I) II) - [""' ...) ~ ,.... ~~ ../,\ I)' ". ", Denied that Plaintiff's employment was terminated on September 12, 1997. It was terminated on August 12, 1997 by Jeffrey T. Martin, President of NOW SystelRs, Ino. 5. Admitted in part. Admitted that the allegations, while not a verbatim statement of Exhibit "A". is a reasonably aoourate reoitation. Denied to the extent that the app1ioab1e bonus was speoifioally limited only to the work of the NOW Systems, Ino. sales staff, i.e., Bradford Hollowbush and ~ileen Page. By way of further denial, see Defendants' New Matter. 6. Denied. Plaintiff is not ~ntit1$d to any bonus. He was properly paid all sums due to him by NOW Systems, Inc. To the extent that Plaintiff makes a demand for a speoifio dollar amount, Defendant is unable to determine how Plaintiff oalculated the amount, and speoifio proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7. Denied. NOW Systems, Ino. properly paid Plaintiff for all bonuses and benefits to whioh he WllS entitled. Defendant reasonably believes that Plaintiff has all sales information from which to oa1culate his alleged bonuses given the faot that Plaintiff made II. speoific calculation in Paragrsph 6 of his Complaint. -2- 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Defendant NOW Systems, Inc. agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for up tc $150.00 per month of his health insurance. Further alleged that Defendant fully rein~ursed Plaintiff up to and beyond his August 12, 1997 termination date. 9 . Admi t ted in part and denied :In part. Admi t ted tha t Plaintiff wrote to Defendant on Deoember 9, 1997 request:l.ng payment for quarterly bonuses and $60.00 for medical coverage for September 1-12, 1997. Denied that Defendant was in any way obligated to make further payments to Plaintiff over and above what it had already paid to him. 10. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no apecific denial is required. To the extent. a response may be required, it is denied that the bonuses sought by Plaintiff are actually owed to him or that they constitute "wages." Specific proof is demanded at trial. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Plaintiff was an "employee" of Defendant corporation. Denied that any "wages" are owed to him by said corporation. Specific proof is demanded at. trial. -3- 12. Denied. Plaintiff at: all times was an employee of Defendant NOW Systems, Inc. Jeffrey T. Martin, in his cMpacity as an aduJt individual, was never Plaintiff's employer. Jeffr8Y T. Martin at all times acted in his capacity as President of NOW Systems, Inc. and executed the Employment Agreem8nt with Plaintiff in that exact capac1.ty. 13. Denied. Neither NOW Systems, Inc. nor Jeffrey T. Martin in h:l.1I capacity as an individual aoted "... wantonly and in bad faith in an effort to avoid their legal obligations to Plaintiff." At all times, both Defendants acted. in a rellsonable manner and paid all swns actually owed to Plaintiff. Denied that Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages. Plaintiff was terminated by NOW Systems, Inc. due to his failure to adequately perform his defined job duties. Specific proof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no ~~ecific denial is required. To the extent a response may be required, Defendants deny tha' they did anything that would give rise to a clllim for attorney's fees. Instead, both Defendants acted in a reasonable manner, and it was Plaintiff's poor jOb performance that lead to his termination. Specific proof is demanded at trial. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants to date have asserted no right: Admitted that to set-off or - 4 - 33. In November of 1997, Defendant NOW systems, Inc. paid additional collected commissions to plaintiff of $4,807.36. 34. pU~8uant to the terms of the Employment Agreement (plaintiff'S Exhibit "A"l, plII.intiff was to serve as both a marketing specialist and as marketing manager. 35. As a marketing specialist, plaintiff was to obtain new customer contracts, with an emphasis on large accounts. 36 . In his capad ty as a marketing specicllist, plaint.iff' II total billed sales from March, 1997 to the end of July, 1997 was $26,300.00. 37. AS the ma~keting manager, Plaintiff was to direct the corporation's sales stll.ff. At all times relevant to this action, the sales staff consisted of plaintiff and Eileen page. Eileen Page is now married to the plaintiff. 38. In the three fiscal quarters prior to plaintiff's employment as marketing manager, Eileen page had billed sales o~ $510,000.00. 39. In the three fiscal quarters that plaintiff served as marketing manager, Eileen Page had billed sales of $144, 0110.00. -8- I I II payments anti msurance reimbursement due him under the terms af the ,I Emplayment Agt ~ement but, to. date, has nat received payment af thase sums fram II II I either Defendant. I II , , I I Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Callectlan Law (43 P.S. 260.1 et seq) which I I remain unpaid. II 11. Plalo"" Is ao "emp'oyee" to wh'ch wages a" pay,b'e wlth'o the meao'og II of the Wage Paymeot aod Co"""'" law. !/ 12. At all times material to. this claim, the Defendant, Jeffrey Martin was an II II "emplayer" under the Wage Payment and Callectlan Law. i 13. Defendants' nan payment af the wages which are due to. Plaintiff was I dane deliberately, wantanly, and In bad faith In an effart to. avald their legal I I abllgatlans to. Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff Is entitled to. liquidated damages as I pravlded In the Wage Payment and Callectlan Law. , I I I ! Plaintiff to. an award af his reasanable attarney's fees Incurred In this action, I I pursuant to. the Wage Payment and Callectlan Law. I 15. Neither Defendant has asserted a right to. set-aff ar asserted a / caunterclalm to. Plaintiff's claim In this matter. Neither Defendant has made any I II I camplalnt abaut Plaintiff's services to. the Defendants In this matter. I II Ii I ,I 9. Plaintiff has demanded payment of bath Defendants far the banus 10, The sums which are due to. Plaintiff canstltute "wages" under the 14. Defendants' nan payment af wages which are due to. Plaintiff entitIes , ' M ~ iJI a 0 ,. I<l . A " . .. ... ~ " ~ " ,.j ~ or, ... . ~ ~ ...i " ~ ~' >- ~ ~ OJ 0 . .. :-. ~ j,~ I<l I>: 0 ~ = ~ ;,) 0 ... ,; ;r, ~ . 0 roi ~ . ~ " " 0 " ~ ~ 04 , '. " .,; . ' , .~. i I J I I i I I J I J I I I herein by reference. II 39, O""d ,,, Ih, ""'" "I '''Ih " P''',,,ph 36 'b,,", whkh '" i""p""'d II herein by reference. II I I employment. Plaintiff's employment was terminated, however, because he had not been II p,'d ,,' "'I., h, w,,,,, '01 ""Ii,,,, t, P"'''m hi, '"""I,", ""''' hi, pwp" 'I "'mp"""" w"' "''''''10' "'if p," to hi", " h, h'd ,,,,'V" """",bI. ,,,,,,,,,,, I that he would be paid. I I exclusively with several of NOW Systems, Inc. 's largest clients, for which Defendant II Martin was dire(:t1y responsible. ') 42. Denied. Plaintiff is unable to respond to the averments set out in Paragraph 42 III b,,,",, Ih, I""m,"o, "'''''''y to '0 " " with', Ih, ",,",'v. "''''tol 0' P1"'''ff 'nd so Defendant denies same and demands proof thereof at trial. 1 I 38. Denied for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 36 above, which are inoorporated 40. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant terminated Plaintiff's 41. Denied. Defendant Martin was a member of the sales staff and dealt 43. Plaintiff is unable to aver what either of the Defendants believe. However, i Plaintiff denies that he has been paid all compensation to which he is dUe. He admits he 1 i I has been paid some commissions, but he is not able to determine if he has been paid al/ I commissions to which he is entitled. He has not been paid the bonus payments and other /, "'mp"""O" 10 whl,h h, I, "Iitl" """ Ih, 'mploym"1 ""'m"l b'lw"," him "If II and the Defendants. iI II II I' .1