Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America
IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America
IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America
Ebook409 pages4 hours

IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

The dreadful, shocking truth of America's corrupt federal courts is finally exposed. The story the media covers up and will not tell the American people. The author spent four years representing himself in civil lawsuits against IBM and the United States government. By representing himself, he was able to penetrate the barrier of mystique and complexity which shields the operation of the corrupt judicial system from non-lawyers. The book clearly show how Federal judges routinely commit and cover-up criminal offenses with the full knowledge and blessing of both the Department of Justice and Congress.

In plain, simple English the book takes the reader on a terrifying insider's tour of the operation of the federal courts, the Department of Justice, and Congress. This book is an easy to read chronicle of one man's personal crusade against tyranny.
LanguageEnglish
PublishereBookIt.com
Release dateDec 18, 2019
ISBN9781456634162
IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America

Related to IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America

Related ebooks

Litigation For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America - Earl Carey

    Washington

    PREFACE

    The most cherished principle of the American way of life is summarized by the last words of the Pledge of Allegiance; ...with liberty and justice for all. The acid test of a judicial system is the administration of justice when a large disparity exists between the money, power, and influence possessed by the parties to a lawsuit. The gravest concern is defined by the following question. Can a powerful defendant fix cases in federal court in America?

    Watergate is the reigning champion as the worst scandal in American history. This book introduces a challenger to that dubious distinction, Carey-Gate. When the smoke clears the challenger will have soundly trounced and dethroned the twenty year old champion. Strong words? Consider this. The media diligently worked to expose the Watergate scandal. With Carey-Gate the media was an accomplice in the coverup. Imagine what sinister and evil crimes corrupt government officials can perpetrate when the media is on their side.

    When anyone writes a book there is an inevitable gap between the author’s intellectual intent and the artistic execution of the words on the printed page. To minimize that gap, I made a conscious decision to violate a cardinal rule of writing and make unrestricted use of the personal pronoun I. During the past five years I have single handedly battled some of the most powerful, ruthless, and unscrupulous tyrants on the face of the planet. I have taken their best shots, and have never blinked. Perhaps as you read this book you will perceive my first person narrative style as being arrogant. If you do, please consider the circumstances and grant me your indulgence.

    E

    arl Carey

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    PREFACE

    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

    CHAPTER 2: THE COMPLAINT

    CHAPTER 3: EMPLOYMENT LAW

    CHAPTER 4: DISCOVERY

    CHAPTER 5: THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

    CHAPTER 6: MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT

    CHAPTER 7: DISCOVERY II

    CHAPTER 8: INSIDE IBM

    CHAPTER 9: THE IBM PRODUCTS

    CHAPTER 10: THE TERMINATION

    CHAPTER 11: THE PRETRIAL ORDER

    CHAPTER 12: FRAUD AND EXTORTION

    CHAPTER 13: JURY TRIAL DENIAL

    CHAPTER 14: WRIT OF MANDAMUS

    CHAPTER 15: JUDICIAL BIAS

    CHAPTER 16: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

    CHAPTER 17: PLEASE MR. POSTMAN

    CHAPTER 18: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    CHAPTER 19: CRIMINAL OFFENSES

    CHAPTER 20: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT II

    CHAPTER 21: CONGRESSMAN KYL AND SENATORS DeCONCINI AND McCAIN

    CHAPTER 22: THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    CHAPTER 23: JUDICIAL HITMAN

    CHAPTER 24: APPEAL FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    CHAPTER 25: SENATORS DANFORTH AND BOND, AND CONGRESSMAN CLAY

    CHAPTER 26: THE COMPLAINT II

    CHAPTER 27: THE GROUND RULES

    CHAPTER 28: THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

    CHAPTER 29: KANGAROO COURT

    CHAPTER 30: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT III

    CHAPTER 31: JUDICIAL BIAS II

    CHAPTER 32: CASE DISMISSED AND JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

    CHAPTER 33: THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

    CHAPTER 34: UNIVERSAL CORRUPTION

    CHAPTER 35: SENATORS DANFORTH AND BOND II

    CHAPTER 36: ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY TO MEDIA SCRUTINY

    CHAPTER 37: HONOR AMONG THIEVES

    CHAPTER 38: IBM UPDATE

    CHAPTER 39: TYRANNY IN AMERICA

    CHAPTER 40: THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION

    APPENDIX

    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

    Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men.

    L

    ord James Atkin

    You’re not a lawyer! You told me you’re not a lawyer. You’re obviously an educated, intelligent, erudite man. But you’re not a lawyer. And you’re presenting things to me that ordinarily would not be presented in this manner.

    Those are the words of a federal judge in St. Louis, Missouri. The you the judge refers to is your author. The occasion was a hearing on a lawsuit I had filed for the violation of my Constitutional rights. I am not a lawyer. I am a Pro Se. A Pro Se is a person who represents himself in court.

    What strange manner of presentation had I employed that had so disturbed the judge? I had constructed my case on the law and the facts, using logical reasoning which would make the strictest high school geometry teacher beam with delight. The law and the facts were not distorted or perverted in any way. To make matters worse, everything I had written and said was the absolute truth. No wonder the judge was so upset. Such tactics are unheard of in federal court.

    How did I wind up in federal court pleading a case for the violation of my Constitutional rights in the first place? The story began innocently enough. After nearly fourteen years of service my employer, IBM, terminated me. I consulted an attorney. On my behalf the attorney filed a lawsuit against IBM for breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in state court in Arizona. Such employment related lawsuits are quite common. A body of law has evolved in this area. Many lawyers, mine in particular, specialize and limit their practice to employment related cases.

    IBM immediately moved the case from Arizona state court to the federal court in Phoenix, Arizona. The initial exchanges of legal artillery fire confirmed my suspicions the judicial system had stacked the deck in favor of IBM. I concluded my best interests would be served by representing myself. Prior to the first court hearing I switched to Pro Se status.

    As the case progressed my Constitutional rights fell like tenpins in the path of an IBM bowling ball. I fought back with the resolve and tenacity of a human pit bull. The FBI, the Department of Justice, various United States Senators and Congressmen, and the Senate Judiciary Committee became involved in this matter. Unfortunately, they all played the role of villains, and not heroes. Their black hats are unmistakable.

    My case against IBM escalated into a national scandal, stretching literally from sea to shining sea. In keeping with the American tradition of naming scandals, the entire sordid affair was dubbed Carey-Gate. At least forty federal judges were entangled in its web. Glance at the appendix for a list of the names and locations of the known Carey-Gate judges.

    The inner workings of our judicial system are hidden from public view by an opaque shroud of mystique and complexity. As a Pro Se, I was able to crash through this barrier. I was not a welcomed guest. This is not a world of loopholes, but rather a world where lawyers and judges routinely commit explicit criminal violations of the law, to enrich themselves and enable members of the corrupt establishment to exploit the American people.

    Like a surgeon wielding a scalpel of truth I was able to dissect not only the federal courts, but also, the operation of the entire United States government. The biopsy reveals a malignant cancer of corruption which is destroying our nation. In this book I present the evidence and logical reasoning to prove these accusations. All legal terms and procedures are explained in plain, simple English. You do not have to be a legal bloodhound to track the scent of the law in Carey-Gate.

    You may be curious as to the names mentioned in the dedication of this book. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was a German mathematician of the seventeenth century. Patrick Henry symbolized the American Revolution with the famous words, give me liberty, or give me death. The ideals which these two men represent were a source of inspiration to me. Armed with the logical reasoning of a German mathematician, and the courage of an American revolutionist, I challenged IBM, the judicial system, and the United States government. Here is my story.

    CHAPTER 2: THE COMPLAINT

    "I sometimes think that the most valuable by-product of a lawsuit against the tyrants of the day is that it flushes them out of their private haunts and subjects them to public scrutiny."

    LOUIS

    Nizer

    On July 29, 1988, after nearly fourteen years of service with the company IBM terminated my employment. I was not laid off, I was fired. At the time I was a salesman, or in IBM’s nomenclature, a marketing representative, in the IBM office in Phoenix, Arizona. On November 23, 1988, my attorney filed a complaint against IBM in Arizona state court alleging breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.

    The complaint is the document which initiates a lawsuit. The complaint identifies the parties; alleges the basis for the court’s jurisdiction; describes the nature of the legal wrong allegedly perpetrated by the defendant; describes the nature of the damages sustained by the plaintiff; and finally defines the relief or compensation demanded by the plaintiff.

    The complaint is organized into numbered paragraphs or allegations. The defendant, in this case IBM, must file an answer to the complaint within twenty days. In my complaint the paragraphs are identified by standard numbers. IBM chose to respond by using Roman numerals. Don’t be confused by this trick. Dispensing with the first four paragraphs which pertain to legal housekeeping issues regarding jurisdiction, here are the pertinent allegations accompanied by IBM’s answers:

    "Allegations Common To All Claims

    In January of 1987 Plaintiff began to experience harassment and unfair treatment by his managers which continued up and through his date of termination.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph V of the complaint.

    In the latter part of 1986, Plaintiff was assigned to Plan IT Overlay (Investment Territory) to market specific computer hardware (9370 and later the RT/PC) in direct competition with that offered by the Digital Equipment Corporation and other competitors.

    IBM: Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph VI of the complaint.

    Due to constraints placed on Plaintiff, as well as the reactions to the products themselves, Plaintiff was unable to successfully perform under Plan IT Overlay, which was reflected in his October 1987 appraisal.

    IBM: Answering paragraph VII of the complaint, denies the allegations set forth in that paragraph except admits that plaintiff did not perform his duties as a Plan IT Overlay Representative and that this was reflected in his October 1987 appraisal.

    Despite the failure of the 9370 and the RT/PC products and of Plan IT Overlay nationwide, Plaintiff was given a negative appraisal in October of 1987 and kept on Plan IT Overlay through the date of his termination despite the fact that Plan IT Overlay was otherwise discontinued at the end of 1987.

    IBM: Answering paragraph VIII of the complaint, denies the allegations set forth in that paragraph except admits that plaintiff was appraised in October 1987 and that, at plaintiff’s own request, he was granted an exception and allowed to continue as a Plan IT Overlay Representative even though Plan IT Overlay was otherwise discontinued at the end of 1987.

    Plaintiff made appeals through the Open Door Policy of IBM in October of 1987 and May of 1988. The investigations regarding these appeals were deliberately conducted with bias and duplicity to cover-up the Defendant’s grievous actions against the Plaintiff.

    IBM: Answering paragraph IX of the complaint, denies the allegations set forth in that paragraph except admits that plaintiff used IBM’s Open Door Policy on various occasions in late 1987 and early 1988.

    Plaintiff’s continued assignment as a Plan IT Overlay representative, his poor job evaluations based upon performance under the plan, placement on an unfair and in fact impossible improvement plan, as well as other acts by his superiors at IBM, violated the spirit and the letter of IBM policies and procedures.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph X of the complaint.

    First Claim For Relief (Breach of Contract)

    IBM adopted specific and particular personnel policies, both written and unwritten which became a part of Plaintiff’s implied contract with IBM.

    IBM: Answering paragraph XI of the complaint, denies the allegations set forth in that paragraph except admits that IBM has personnel policies and guidelines.

    The terms of Plaintiff’s implied employment contract with IBM included among other contractual rights, the right to receive fair and consistent treatment, the right to use of the Open Door Policy and have that policy administered in a fair and equitable manner, imposition of fair and consistent sales quotas, imposition of fair and reasonable discipline including adequate notice of poor performance, realistic opportunity to improve upon poor performance, and the right to be terminated only for good cause.

    IBM: Answering paragraph XII of the complaint, denies the allegations set forth in that paragraph except admits that IBM has an Open Door Policy that plaintiff used and a Performance, Planning, Counseling & Evaluation Program that was applied to plaintiff, and affirmatively alleges that plaintiff was terminable-at-will and had no express or implied employment contract with IBM.

    The action of IBM during the last 19 months of Plaintiff’s employment resulted in numerous instances of unfair and inconsistent treatment resulting in Plaintiff being put in a position where he had no opportunity to succeed and was bound to eventually fail and be terminated.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XIV of the complaint.

    Such conduct by IBM constitutes a violation of numerous policies and procedures both written and unwritten making up Plaintiff’s implied employment contract and therefore constitutes a breach of contract by IBM.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XIV of the complaint.

    Such breach of contract has resulted in Plaintiff’s termination and loss of substantial wages and benefits, caused Plaintiff to endure emotional distress, humiliation, damage to his reputation in employment, the erosion of job skills, and other compensatory and consequential damages.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XIII of the complaint.

    Second Claim For Relief (Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

    Prior to Plaintiff’s termination on July 29, 1988, Defendant IBM, subjected Plaintiff to 19 months of unfair and inconsistent treatment by constantly harassing Plaintiff and offering no support to Plaintiff to allow him to successfully perform his job.

    IBM: Answering paragraph XVI of the complaint, denies the allegations set forth in that paragraph except admits that plaintiff was terminated on July 29, 1988.

    The Defendant’s actions were intended to inflict emotional distress in that they served no other purpose other than to harass and cause injury to Plaintiff. In the alternative Defendant acted in careless disregard of Plaintiff and negligently inflicted emotional distress.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XVII of the complaint.

    As a result of Defendant’s conduct Plaintiff suffered severe emotional and psychological injury, as well as humiliation and embarrassment and damage to self-esteem.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XVIII of the complaint.

    By carrying out its actions which constituted the intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress Defendant acted intentionally, maliciously, wantonly and with reckless regard of Plaintiff’s interests.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XIX of the complaint.

    Defendant has undertaken to frustrate, harm, vex, harass, intimidate and threaten the rights and interest of the Plaintiff as aforesaid and has intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress upon the Plaintiff by terminating him at the time and in the manner in which he was terminated.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XX of the complaint.

    The acts of the Defendant are so outrageous and unconscionable that in addition to all other damages which Plaintiff may recover in this action, he is further entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages from these Defendants.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XXI of the complaint.

    Third Claim For Relief (Fraud)

    Defendant represented to Plaintiff that its Open Door program was a fair and equitable procedure for redressing of grievances.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XXII of the complaint.

    With Defendant’s knowledge Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendant’s representations to his detriment, believing he would receive fair and equitable treatment.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XXIII of the complaint.

    Defendant did not handle Plaintiff’s Open Door complaints in a fair and equitable manner and did not address all of the issues raised.

    IBM: Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph XXIV of the complaint.

    As a result of Defendants fraudulent misrepresentations Plaintiff was left in a position where he was harassed and eventually terminated by his superiors, causing severe financial and emotional damages as set forth above.

    IBM: Answering paragraph XXV of the complaint, denies the allegations set forth in that paragraph except admits plaintiff was terminated."

    When answering a complaint, the defendant can assert what is referred to as an affirmative defense. This legal tactic will be explained later in the book. In addition to answering my allegations, IBM asserted the following affirmative defense:

    30. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting a claim because his continuance as a Plan IT Overlay Representative was made at his insistence and because plaintiff refused to carry out the duties specified in his improvement plan.

    My complaint was concluded with the following paragraph:

    "WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:

    a. For Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for breach of Plaintiff’s contract of employment and the intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

    b. For all compensatory and consequential damages incurred by Plaintiff which are the proximate result of the negligent and intentional acts of the Defendant as numerated above, in an amount that is reasonable and prudent;

    c. For punitive damages;

    d. That Plaintiff recover costs and attorney’s fees; and

    e. That Plaintiff recover such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

    IBM concluded its answer with the following paragraph:

    WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by his complaint and that the Court award IBM its attorneys’ fees in accordance with A.R.S. 12.341.01 and its costs herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as is just and proper.

    The first ten amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the Bill of Rights. Number seven guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits. The caption Jury Trial Requested was clearly displayed on the face of my complaint.

    On December 19, 1988, IBM filed a motion to remove the case from the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County to the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona. Here are the pertinent parts of IBM’s motion:

    "At the time this action was commenced, IBM was and still is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of New York and having its principal place of business in that State, and is thus a New York citizen...

    This Court has original jurisdiction of the action... because the citizenship of the parties is diverse..."

    The IBM managers who terminated me were all citizens of Arizona. IBM has other offices and employees throughout the state of Arizona. At this time IBM had a large manufacturing facility in Tucson. IBM proudly publicized its Arizona heritage and its products manufactured in Arizona. IBM had substantial business relationships with Arizona government agencies.

    However, with its motion for removal IBM disavowed any Arizona citizenship. Instead, IBM declared it was a citizen of New York. And since I was a citizen of Arizona, IBM claimed it had the legal right to move the case to federal court. The implication being that otherwise a powerful Arizona citizen like myself, would have been able to shake down a poor, little New York company like IBM in the biased Arizona state courts.

    Here is the perfect example of a loophole. Even though this IBM motion was absurd, it was legal. I was powerless to prevent the transfer. Thus my case was moved to federal court. Therein lies the story.

    CHAPTER 3: EMPLOYMENT LAW

    We never deceive for a good purpose. Knavery always adds malice to falsehood.

    Jean De La Bruyere

    In the private sector employment litigation is covered by state law. So even though IBM had removed the case to federal court, the employment laws of the state of Arizona still applied. In Arizona employment is on an at-will basis. At-will means an employer can terminate an employee at any time, without prior notice, and for any reason or no reason at all. However, an employer can modify the at-will agreement and create an implied employment contract between the employer and the employee. The employer can create an implied employment contract by means of oral and written representations it makes to its employees, and even through the company’s customs and practices.

    There are valid business reasons for an employer to modify the at-will relationship. Personnel policies and procedures relating to performance planning, employee appraisals, salary administration, employee discipline, and means for resolving employee grievances are essential tools to manage a business organization. Employees are more productive in an environment where they feel safe and secure, and can expect fair and consistent treatment from the employer. In a company the size of IBM, adherence to the at-will relationship would result in chaos. Managing a large business profitably would be impossible without implementing policies and procedures which modify the at-will agreement.

    Employers must constantly compete with other organizations to recruit new employees and retain existing employees. Policies which modify the at-will agreement are vital to a company successfully competing in these areas. People are attracted to companies which assure fair and consistent treatment, security, equal opportunity for advancement, and provide impartial employee discipline and grievance procedures to protect employees from arbitrary and unjust actions by their superiors.

    Also, by modifying the at-will relationship an employer can minimize the incentive for his employees to organize a labor union. Union employees are protected by a negotiated contract, and are not at the mercy of the at-will relationship. Given the choice, most employers would rather deal with their employees individually, rather than collectively through a labor union.

    D. Quinn Mills, a Harvard Business School professor, has written a book entitled The IBM Lesson. In this book Dr. Mills describes IBM’s personnel policies and why they have elected to modify the at-will relationship. Quoting Dr. Mills: They don’t do it for charitable reasons. They believe it’s the foundation of corporate loyalty, the foundation of high performance among their employees in the long term, and that therefore it is worth what it costs them. Dr. Mills continues, I thought it was important to put out a positive story, one that shows an alternative to all this downsizing and layoffs and insecurity that now permeates the American work force.

    Many companies provide their employees with documents such as employee manuals which describe their policies and procedures. Arizona law mandates that if the employer does not want the manual to modify the at-will relationship, he must include a clear and conspicuous disclaimer. The disclaimer must state in clear and unequivocal language the employee is terminable at-will, and can be terminated without notice, for any reason or no reason at all. The disclaimer must be conspicuous in the front of the manual, and not be buried or hidden in the body of the document.

    This looks like a loophole which creates an opportunity for an employer to have the best of both worlds. An employer could modify the at-will relationship to recruit and retain his employees. Then he could also preserve his right to terminate the employees at-will, by including a clear and conspicuous disclaimer in the employee manual. Wrong! The Arizona courts have ruled that even though an employer has provided a clear and conspicuous disclaimer, an implied employment contract can be created by means of other written and oral representations the employer makes to his employees, or even through the customs and practices of the company. Whether an implied employment contract exists, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury, considering the totality and intent of the employer’s actions.

    Now let’s take a look at quotations from Arizona court rulings which illustrate these principles. Some of these rulings reference a legal procedure called summary judgment. Summary judgment will be explained in detail later in the book:

    Employers are certainly free to issue no personnel manual at all, or to issue a personnel manual that clearly and conspicuously tells their employees that the manual is not part of the employment contract and that their jobs are terminable at the will of the employer with or without reason.

    Employer’s right to discharge an at-will employee may be limited by the terms and conditions contained in a personnel manual. Whether a personnel manual modifies an employment at-will relationship and becomes part of an employment contract is a question of fact.

    The absence of a personnel manual or the presence of disclaiming language in it’s policy’s may not absolutely insulate an employer from liability. If contrary written or oral assurances are given to the employee at the hiring interview or during employment, such promises may constitute implied contracts.

    The manual purports to make a number of assurances of fair treatment, personal respect, and significantly, job security, a concept completely at odds with the traditional at-will employment relationship. The broad terms can reasonably be construed in more than one sense, and their meaning cannot be determined within the four corners of the agreement. If any agreement is found to be ambiguous and there is the slightest doubt as to whether a factual issue remains in dispute, the granting of summary judgment is erroneous and such doubt must be resolved in favor of a trial on the merits.

    Thus, the trial court properly instructed the jury that it should decide what constituted the contract of the parties and could consider not only a document entitled Employee Agreement, but also other documents of the company such as the Non-exempt Discipline Policy and the company’s customs and practices.

    The intent to create a different relationship, as well as the parameters of that relationship, are to be discerned from the totality of the parties’ statements and actions regarding the employment relationship.

    In a case involving the American Express Company, the policy manual contained this language in the section on terminations: As you know, your employment with American Express Company can be terminated at any time by either the Company or yourself. Despite this language, the court found that assurances of fair treatment, personal respect and job security in other parts of the manual made the entire document ambiguous.

    In a case involving Intel, the employee actually signed a document acknowledging that This agreement does not in any way restrict my right or the right of Intel to terminate my employment. The court ruled that the general statement regarding the right of Intel to terminate employment did not remove from the jury’s consideration, the issue as to whether or not the disclaimer was clear and conspicuous and as to whether when all of these representations were taken as a whole, the employment at-will relationship was modified.

    As you can see, Arizona law has completely closed the loopholes which would enable unscrupulous employers to defraud and exploit their workers by modifying the at-will relationship, while still retaining the right to arbitrarily terminate employees.

    Now we will examine the IBM employee manual and other written representations to determine if IBM has modified the at-will relationship according to Arizona law.

    Following are quotes from the IBM manual entitled About Your Company:

    IBM’s basic belief of respect for the individual means caring about the dignity and rights of every person in the organization.

    But some things never change. The company’s beliefs, the cornerstones of its success, are enduring. Respect for the individual — caring about the dignity and rights of every person in the organization. Customer Service — giving the best customer service of any company in the world. Excellence — performing in a superior way. Those beliefs have led to a proliferation of programs, plans and policies which make practical applications of the basic beliefs.

    The company takes positive action to insure that all employees get the same chance to succeed.

    People are a treasured resource and they are treated like one.

    In over 40 years, no person employed on a regular basis by IBM has lost as much as one hour of working time because of a layoff.

    It’s hardly a surprise that one of the main reasons people like to work for IBM is that the company has maintained full employment in the past and will strive to maintain it in the future.

    The object? To provide them with both meaningful jobs and jobs in which they have a real chance for success and satisfaction.

    IBM’s goal is to maintain the highest standard of business conduct possible. Essentially, the company’s rules governing business conduct come down to honesty and fairness in dealing with IBM, with customers, suppliers, and competitors.

    "IBM has not established any specific term of employment; therefore, termination may be initiated at any time by either an employee or by management. If you initiate the separation, it is considered a voluntary resignation. It is customary, but not required, to submit a letter of resignation two weeks in advance of the requested date of resignation.

    Separation can also be initiated by management if an employee fails to meet IBM’s performance, punctuality or attendance standards, or if an employee engages in misconduct or violates a company policy."

    On page 171 of this manual the following disclaimer appears:

    The foregoing illustrates IBM’s benefits, policies, rules, and regulations in effect at the time of publication. Each or any may be changed as the company requires. Nothing contained in the book shall be construed as creating an express or implied obligation on the part of IBM.

    This disclaimer is not conspicuous nor does it say anything about IBM employees being terminable at-will. Furthermore, the disclaimer only applies to this manual.

    IBM also makes written representations to its employees outside this manual. For example, my manager wrote me a letter which stated:

    This memo is to formalize and make clear to you that you are expected to maintain all of the conditions of your ongoing employment. If you violate any of these conditions of employment, you may be separated from the business.

    An IBM employee newsletter describes IBM’s Open Door grievance procedure as follows:

    Substance, not rhetoric. A thorough and objective review of an employee’s concern by an impartial party helps to put issues in perspective for manager and employee alike. The goal is to see that all parties get the fairest review possible when an employee has a problem.

    A letter from an IBM executive to me states:

    "The Chairman of the Board is a staunch supporter of the Open Door Policy and, like his predecessors, personally reviews all appeals to his office to insure the investigations are impartial and that the resolution is fair and just. The IBM Open Door Policy is recognized by federal agencies,

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1