Part 5: The Admission

 

In Part 4, I detailed the months of silence that followed my repeated formal requests and motion to the court to inspect the “Entire Agreement” the lawsuit was based on. Because the Employment Agreement explicitly stated that compensation was defined in a separate Compensation Agreement, and Section 16(f) required both for a “complete and total integration,” I needed to see the signed originals.

On June 28, 2017, two years after the lawsuit began, I decided to drive down to Indianapolis. The decision carried some risk given my health at the time. I sat down face-to-face with Valeo’s lead counsel, Andrew Hull.

At the time, Mr. Hull was one of the most high-profile litigators in the state. He was concurrently handling IBM v. Indiana, a $1.3 billion dispute that was the highest-claim litigation for the State of Indiana in history. He was now sitting across from a self-represented defendant in a case that had begun as a $33,627.75 claim.

Here is video of that meeting.

_________________________

The Video: A Question of the Record

_________________________ 

The Facts of the Exchange

In this interaction, several admissions were made on the record:

• The Foundational Admission: When asked to inspect the original compensation agreement, the response was: “the compensation agreement was never signed”.

• The “Assembled” Document: While the firm held an original employment agreement, counsel admitted the document they were relying on for the lawsuit was a “photocopy that was assembled” from various exhibits and an employee statement.

• The Double-Down: The exchange concluded with a final confirmation that the firm did not possess the signed documents they claimed were binding: “If you’re asking whether... we have signed copies of your compensation agreement, we don’t”.

The Disconnect

For two years, the litigation had proceeded on the premise that a complete, signed instrument existed, and was their justification for why they could sue me in Marion County instead of Elkhart. Despite my constant objections, the judge agreed with them. In the video, I asked if this meant my compensation was now to be considered “implied” rather than “explicit”. Counsel stated he would not agree with that.

The lead attorney for the firm—a man handling billion-dollar state contracts—had admitted the Compensation Agreement defining my pay was never signed.

If no signed agreement existed, why was the firm litigating so aggressively?

_________________________ 

In Part 6, I will walk through the internal management reports I discovered, which led to an answer to that question.