Stock Options

I'd like to know if I have a case here. My former employer has a little-known rule that allows them to take away vested stock options in the event that you leave the company and go to work for a competitor. I left for a competitor and had my options taken away. However, someone else left from my same department and went to a company that is even more direct competition than I am, and they were allowed to exercise their options. Is there any potential discrimination angle here? It feels an awful lot like someone at my former office was playing favorites. It depends on how the departure was coded in the HR system as to wether or not your options are cancelled, and this other person was not coded the same as I was. Is this worth pursuing, or should I just forget about it? Depending on the market value, my options were worth up to $25,000.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tom_b29:
I'd like to know if I have a case here. My former employer has a little-known rule that allows them to take away vested stock options in the event that you leave the company and go to work for a competitor. I left for a competitor and had my options taken away. However, someone else left from my same department and went to a company that is even more direct competition than I am, and they were allowed to exercise their options. Is there any potential discrimination angle here? It feels an awful lot like someone at my former office was playing favorites. It depends on how the departure was coded in the HR system as to wether or not your options are cancelled, and this other person was not coded the same as I was. Is this worth pursuing, or should I just forget about it? Depending on the market value, my options were worth up to $25,000.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Please look at the top, left, corner of this page. It says, "State Laws vary greatly. Include your state in all postings."
A lot of you have "State specific" questions, yet you good folks are not reading, and FAIL to tell us your State. There are 50 States in the Union, and all have differing laws. We cannot help you with anything but "general" concepts of law if we don't know your State, and "general concepts" may HURT YOU.

NOTICE:
Therefore, this writer will, from now on, IGNORE all questions and entries unless they include your State.

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

The state here is Georgia. Sorry I didn't mention that earlier. The corporate headquarters for my former employer is Kansas City, MO.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tom_b29:
I'd like to know if I have a case here. My former employer has a little-known rule that allows them to take away vested stock options in the event that you leave the company and go to work for a competitor. I left for a competitor and had my options taken away. However, someone else left from my same department and went to a company that is even more direct competition than I am, and they were allowed to exercise their options. Is there any potential discrimination angle here? It feels an awful lot like someone at my former office was playing favorites. It depends on how the departure was coded in the HR system as to wether or not your options are cancelled, and this other person was not coded the same as I was. Is this worth pursuing, or should I just forget about it? Depending on the market value, my options were worth up to $25,000.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

We need to know if the "little known rule" was in the company employee manual, and what the codes mean. You may have a protected property interest, but we need to see the exact wording.

IAAL




------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

The "little known rule" is in a section of the employee stock-option bonus plan. The company sends out documentation for each year. One pamphlet they send out reads that vested options expire "at the end of 3 months, or 10 years after the grant date, whichever comes first" in the event of a "resignation or other voluntary termination." The reference to vested options being taken away immediately in the event that an employee resigns to work for a competitor is not referenced in that document, but it is included in the full plan documentation. I say "little known" because I've polled everyone I knew at my former employer, and not one person knew about it.

I don't know what the HR codes are exactly, but one indicates voluntary termination or resignation and one indicates resignation to work for a competitor. My contention is that one person was coded as the former, which allowed them to exercise their options within the 3 month window, while I was coded as the latter--correct by the rule, but I feel it reflects preferential treatment of another person and possible discrimination and I want the company to address that. The other person should not have had the right to exercise their options. Typically, discrimination occurs when one person is denied benefits intended for all, but in this case it's the other way around: one person is spared a measure that everyone should have received, and I feel that's wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tom_b29:
The "little known rule" is in a section of the employee stock-option bonus plan. The company sends out documentation for each year. One pamphlet they send out reads that vested options expire "at the end of 3 months, or 10 years after the grant date, whichever comes first" in the event of a "resignation or other voluntary termination." The reference to vested options being taken away immediately in the event that an employee resigns to work for a competitor is not referenced in that document, but it is included in the full plan documentation. I say "little known" because I've polled everyone I knew at my former employer, and not one person knew about it.

I don't know what the HR codes are exactly, but one indicates voluntary termination or resignation and one indicates resignation to work for a competitor. My contention is that one person was coded as the former, which allowed them to exercise their options within the 3 month window, while I was coded as the latter--correct by the rule, but I feel it reflects preferential treatment of another person and possible discrimination and I want the company to address that. The other person should not have had the right to exercise their options. Typically, discrimination occurs when one person is denied benefits intended for all, but in this case it's the other way around: one person is spared a measure that everyone should have received, and I feel that's wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

If your facts are accurate, I tend to agree with you. It is unfair what they have done to you. Selective punishment is wrong and illegal. Therefore, the following is the same in the great State of Georgia as it is in the rest of the county: I believe you should fill out the "easy" complaint form you can get from the Federal Fair Employment and Housing Administration, and have them investigate the matter. They are quite good, and fast, at what they do. Look them up in the Federal section of your White Pages (toward the beginning of the book). You'll get a "Right to Sue" letter after their investigation, and then go see an attorney.

Side note: Georgia is one of my most favorite States !! The history, the grandeur, the beauty and the people are just wonderful. And besides, it's the home of my favorite soft drink.

Good luck to you.

IAAL




------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

Thanks for the feedback! I'll definitely pursue this. However, I've scoured the white pages and have had no luck finding the Federal Fair Employment & Housing Admin. I see Department of Labor, which pointed me towawrds the EEOC for employment complaints. I'm not sure if this is an EO issue or not. Do you know what Department the FFEHA is under - Labor or Housing? I tried to find it online and had no luck. Thanks again!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tom_b29:
Thanks for the feedback! I'll definitely pursue this. However, I've scoured the white pages and have had no luck finding the Federal Fair Employment & Housing Admin. I see Department of Labor, which pointed me towawrds the EEOC for employment complaints. I'm not sure if this is an EO issue or not. Do you know what Department the FFEHA is under - Labor or Housing? I tried to find it online and had no luck. Thanks again! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

Okay, go here:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/r_r/fairempl.htm

You'll learn everything you need to know, and more.

Good luck to you.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

why does IAAL post such idiocy?

1. stop complaining that people don't post their state. if they don't, don't respond and just stop whining.

2. if someone tells you their state (like this message-string did), pay attention to what they said. he said he was in georgia, and you gave him a link to the california department of fair employment & housing. "whadda maroon" as bugs used to say.

3. the federal agency IS the EEOC; there is no federal feha.