BALLA V. GAMBRO, INC.
584 N.E.2d 104 (1991)
NATURE OF THE CASE:
Balla (P) brought an action against Gambro (D) for retaliatory discharge. The trial court
granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of D. The Appellate Court, First Circuit
reversed the trial court's order and denied the motion for summary judgment. D appealed.
FACTS:
P is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois. D is a distributor of
kidney dialysis equipment manufactured by Gambro Germany. P was responsible for all legal
matters within the company and for personnel within the company's sales office. P was to
advise, counsel, and represent management on legal matters; establish and administer
personnel policies; coordinate and overseeing corporate activities to assure compliance
with applicable laws and regulations, and prevent or minimize legal or administrative
proceedings; and coordinating the activities of the manager of regulatory affairs. The
manager of regulatory affairs for D and P assumed the manager's specific duties. P's
annual compensation was increased. Requirements for the regulatory affairs position were a
bachelor of science degree and three to five years in the medical device field plus two
years experience in the area of government regulations. The individual in the position
prior to P was not an attorney. In July 1985 P told the president of D to reject a
shipment from Germany because the dialyzers did not comply with FDA regulations. The
president notified Gambro Germany. One week later the president informed Gambro Germany
that D would accept the dialyzers and 'sell [them] to a unit that is not currently our
customer but who buys only on price.' P became aware of the new decision through other D
employees. P told the president that he would do whatever necessary to stop the sale of
the dialyzers. On September 4, 1985, P was discharged. P reported the shipment of the
dialyzers to the FDA. The FDA seized the shipment and determined the product to be
'adulterated within the meaning of section 501(h) of the [Federal Act].' P filed a
four-count complaint in tort for retaliatory discharge seeking $22 million in damages. D
filed a motion for summary judgment. It was granted. The court concluded that the duties P
was performing which led to his discharge were 'conduct clearly within the attorney-client
relationship' and that D had the 'absolute right' to discharge its attorney. On appeal,
the court held that an attorney is not barred as a matter of law from bringing an action
for retaliatory discharge. Standing to bring the action was based on the following
three-part test: '(1) whether [the attorney's] discharge resulted from information he
learned as a 'layman' in a nonlegal position; (2) whether [the attorney] learned the
information as a result of the attorney/client relationship, if so, whether the
information was privileged, and if it was privileged, whether the privilege was waived;
and (3) whether there were any countervailing public policies favoring disclosure of
privileged information learned from the attorney/client relationship.' D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free
samples of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment