DOC PREVIEW
UNCW BLA 361 - Dunn v Enterprise Rent a car

This preview shows page 1-2-3 out of 10 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

OpinionMissouri Court of Appeals Eastern DistrictCase Style: Thomas P. Dunn, Appellant, v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Respondent.Case Number: ED83240Handdown Date: 04/12/2005Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Jack KoehrCounsel for Appellant: Jerome J. Dobson and Matthew John GhioCounsel for Respondent: Michael A. Kahn, Julie M. Kennedy, Andrew Davis and Gordon L. AnkneyOpinion Summary: Thomas P. Dunn ("Dunn") appeals from the trial court's judgment granting Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company's ("Enterprise") motions for directed verdict on Dunn's claim that he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to violate the law or a clear mandate of public policy, and on his claim that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy for reporting conduct by Enterprise that he reasonably believed violated federal securities laws. Dunn also appeals from the trial court's judgment granting Enterprise's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative, for a new trial, after the jury returned a verdict of $4,000,000 in favor of Dunn on his claim that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy for reporting Enterprise's illegal business practices in Missouri andother states. REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.DIVISION ONE HOLDS: The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on Dunn's claim that he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to violate the law or a clear mandate of public policy because, viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to Dunn, we find Dunn made a submissible case that the conduct he was asked to engage in with respect to Enterprise's financial statements in preparation for the initial public offering would have been in violation of federal securities regulations or a clear mandate of public policy as enunciated in those regulations. See Johnson v. World Color Press, Inc. , 498 N.E.2d 575 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986). The trial court also erred in granting Enterprise's motion for a directed verdict on his claim that Enterprise terminated his employment for reporting conduct by it that he reasonably believed would have violated federal securities regulations because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dunn, we find Dunn presented sufficient evidence at trial to make a submissible case on this claim. We agree with the trial court 's judgment, however, that Dunn failed to make a submissible case on his claim that he was wrongfully terminated for reporting Enterprise's alleged unlawful conduct with respect to its automobile licensing, sales tax and surcharge practices because he failed to identify a law or clear mandate of public policy that he believed Enterprise violated or would violate.Citation: Opinion Author: Booker T. Shaw, JudgeOpinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART. Draper III, P.J., and Sullivan, J., concur.Opinion:Thomas P. Dunn ("Dunn") appeals from the trial court's judgment granting Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company's ("Enterprise") motions for directed verdict on Dunn's claim that he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to violate the law or a clear mandate of public policy, and on his claim that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy for reporting conduct by Enterprise that he reasonably believed violated federal securities laws. Dunn also appeals from the trial court's judgment granting Enterprise's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative, for a new trial, after the jury returned a verdict of $4,000,000 in favor of Dunn on his claim that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy for reporting Enterprise's illegal business practices in Missouri andother states. We reverse and remand in part, and affirm in part.In reviewing a trial court's judgment granting a motion for directed verdict, we must determine whether the plaintiff made a submissible case, i.e., whether the plaintiff introduced substantial evidence at trial that tends to prove the essential facts for his or her recovery. Wright v. Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen and Warehousemen , 945 S.W.2d 481, 489 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). We view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, giving him or her the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and disregarding the defendant's evidence except to the extent that it aids the plaintiff's case. Id. "'There is a presumption in favor of reversing a trial court's grant of a motion for directed verdictunless, upon consideration of the facts most favorable to the plaintiff, 'those facts are so strongly against the plaintiff as to leave no room for reasonable minds to differ as to a result.'" Id. (quoting Friend v. Holman , 888 S.W.2d 369, 371 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994)). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dunn, we find as follows: Dunn began working for Enterprise in 1986 as an accountant. In early 1993, Dunn became Enterprise's corporate comptroller and an officer of the company. In 1994, Dunn earned Vice-President officer level status as corporate comptroller, where he remained until his termination on January 4, 2001. During the time Dunn was employed by Enterprise, he always received positive performance reviews. Dunn testified at trial that as the company's comptroller, he certified each year that the company's financial records were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). Itwould have also been Dunn's responsibility as corporate comptroller to certify that the company's financial statements were prepared in accordance with GAAP for an initial public offering ("IPO"). Dunn reported to John O'Connell ("O'Connell"), Enterprise's Chief Financial Officer, as corporate comptroller. O'Connell reported to Enterprise's President and Chief Executive Officer, Andy Taylor.Enterprise is a privately held company and the majority of the company is owned by the Taylor family. In May 1998, O'Connell directed Dunn to begin investigating issues to enable Enterprise to prepare for anIPO. Dunn testified that Enterprise's senior management received high cash compensation and the company could not go public with such high levels of cash compensation. Dunn worked on the issue of executive compensation for an IPO for over a year. Dunn recommended that Enterprise use stock optionsas a substitute for cash to address the compensation issue, which the company began doing in 1999.In preparation for the IPO, Dunn began


View Full Document

UNCW BLA 361 - Dunn v Enterprise Rent a car

Documents in this Course
TWO PESOS

TWO PESOS

16 pages

Reading

Reading

13 pages

Russia

Russia

113 pages

Contracts

Contracts

55 pages

Property

Property

54 pages

Contracts

Contracts

45 pages

Load more
Download Dunn v Enterprise Rent a car
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Dunn v Enterprise Rent a car and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Dunn v Enterprise Rent a car 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?