Part 2: What Happened to My Compensation

 

In Part 1, stated that my wages were withheld.

This is what that looked like.

---

In 2014, I received quarterly compensation reports from my employer.

Each report included a section labeled “Compensation Summary.”

Within that section, there was a line item labeled “Performance Standards Adjustment.”

Below is the exact line from one of those reports:

______________________________________ 

Quarter Ending September 30, 2014

In that quarter, the adjustment was:

3.3% of compensation, or $769.21

______________________________________

Quarter Ending December 31, 2014

In the following quarter, the same adjustment appears again and increased to:

8.5% of compensation, or $1,938.92

______________________________________

How the Percentage Was Determined

Below is the chart used to determine the percentage. The highlighted portion shows the adjustment.

The percentage shown above (3.3% and 8.5%) came directly from these charts.

These charts compare actual revenue production or service to internally defined standards.

My earnings were reduced by a percentage based on internal performance targets.

The lower the performance relative to those targets, the higher the percentage reduction.

The resulting percentage was then applied within the compensation calculation.

______________________________________

How It Functioned

This adjustment:

• Was applied as a percentage of compensation

• Appeared directly within the compensation calculation

• Reduced the amount paid

The higher the percentage, the less I was paid.

It was not presented as:

• an expense

• a reimbursement

• or a separate charge

In practical terms, this wasn’t just a missed bonus. It was a retroactive clawback of earned wages based on internal metrics that changed quarter to quarter.

______________________________________

This is the mechanism I am referring to when I say my wages were withheld.

______________________________________

In Part 3, I will walk through what happened after this—when this issue turned into a legal claim.

Part 1: A Matter of Record

 

My employer withheld my wages.

I left.

They sued me for breach of an employment agreement.

Eleven years later, a court has ruled that I owe them $180,432.71.

As of today, my personal and business bank accounts have been restricted.

That restriction included funds earned by my son this past summer for college, because I was apparently a co-owner on his accounts from before he turned 18.

The same court has also ruled that I am not allowed to pay his tuition.

That is the current situation.

---

Over the past eleven years, I have largely stayed quiet about the details of this case. Those close to me—clients, friends, and family—have heard parts of it, but never the full record in one place.

This is that record.

Not an argument. Not a reaction. A record.

______________________________________ 

I am going to walk through what happened step by step, using documents, dates, and verifiable facts.

There will be no speculation presented as fact. Where something is directly supported, I will show it. Where something is an inference, I will say so.

My goal is not to relitigate this in public.

It is to document it clearly enough that anyone reading—especially those in similar professional positions—can understand how a situation like this develops, and recognize it if they ever encounter something similar.

______________________________________  

At the time this began, I did not take it seriously.

Based on the facts available to me, there was no clear reason that it should become serious.

Looking back, that assumption was wrong.

______________________________________ 

In Part 2, I will start with the simplest place:

What was actually done to my compensation, and what was not disclosed at the time.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Assets / Capital

IOW, Welch's appellate court nomination...

If you are completely stupefied at the Judicial Nominating Commission selecting Judge Welch as one of three options for the governor to appoint to the Indiana Appellate Court, then you don't understand the equation for net assets, the JNC's method for valuation, or you haven't counted some assets. 

When I saw the nominees, all I could do was chuckle... 

On and off... 

For a few hours...

I wasn't surprised at all.

• assets - liabilities = net assets
• assets > liabilities = positive net assets
• liabilities > assets = negative net assets 
• one person's liability is another's asset / the borrower is servant to the lender
• covering someone's liability owed to a third party, keeps the borrower a servant, but now to a new master   

CourtCall and Judge Heather Welch

The past year has been brutal on almost every company in every industry.

Only a handful of companies have thrived during the pandemic, benefitting even more than before. Netflix, while we all sat at home with nothing to do. The RV industry in my hometown giving people the means to safe freedom. PPE manufacturers. And obviously Zoom. But also the Zoom equivalent for courts, CourtCall. 

Trust me, this post will be much more interesting than you might think. Because very few active parties from Indiana's highest courts can find a plausible argument for ignorance. They all know.

Welch's Significant Cases- How Does She Do It?

The comment originates with Wayne Turner, whose firm Hoover, Hull, Turner, LLP regularly finds itself in Judge Heather Welch's court. In a December 2017 review of the then pilot project for Commercial Courts, Turner offered the following suggestion:

Help the higher volume Commercial Courts to clear their dockets of matters from non-Commercial Court cases; I don't know how Judge Welch keeps up, but she does it somehow.

That's not even considering her numerous ongoing obligations and contributions to the broader legal profession detailed in this post Welch's Amazing Professional Contributions.

Let's see if maybe we can solve Mr. Turner's mystery for him.

Worse Than Regulatory Capture

In the realm of regulation and protecting the public interest, how could anything be worse than regulatory capture, right?

Excuse the crass word, but what if there was regulatory incest? Extend the proverbial fox hen house to having foxes protecting the hen house and judging claims of harm by hens against foxes. What I am suggesting isn’t an otherwise neutral third party that starts taking bribes, as if a cow favored foxes for some side benefit. 

Welch's Amazing Professional Contributions

We previously detailed Judge Welch's amazingly busy courtroom that for some odd reason gets a large percentage of the most notable cases in Indiana courts. Yet with all that, Judge Heather Welch still finds a few minutes to give back to the profession: