After reading the SJ briefs in the MB vs. LabCorp case, I can't help and wonder how LCA will attempt to "wiggle" outta this one?
Plantiff’s partial SJ paper; Moreover, the notion of a perceived conflict of interest as a basis to support TF'S decision to summarily terminate MB was contrary to his own personal conduct. In this regard, TF admits that the Code applies to all Lab Corp employees, including himself, and that he would not enforce the Code any differently for MB than he would himself. Notwithstanding TF testimony in this respect, TF initially denied under oath having any outside business interests at the time he contemplated terminating MB.
Moreover, following this Court’s Order, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Defendant signed a sworn supplemental answer to interrogatories specifically denying that TF was involved in an outside business interest. When presented with evidence that he was, in fact, an officer and director of an unrelated company named L.P. Lewis, he begrudgingly admitted that he was involved in an outside business interest, and that he did not seek defendant’s consent to engage in such activity, in clear violation of Defendant’s code.
More troubling is the fact, Farrell acknowledges that while sitting on the board of directors of L.P. Lewis, he was involved in and approved the decision for LP Lewis to file suit against Baycare and St. Anthony’s Hospital existing customers of LabCorp. Both the suit and TF'S involvement with L.P. Lewis were clearly in the public domain, and even TF concedes that such activity violated Defendant’s conflict of interest policy.
Plantiff’s partial SJ paper; Moreover, the notion of a perceived conflict of interest as a basis to support TF'S decision to summarily terminate MB was contrary to his own personal conduct. In this regard, TF admits that the Code applies to all Lab Corp employees, including himself, and that he would not enforce the Code any differently for MB than he would himself. Notwithstanding TF testimony in this respect, TF initially denied under oath having any outside business interests at the time he contemplated terminating MB.
Moreover, following this Court’s Order, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Defendant signed a sworn supplemental answer to interrogatories specifically denying that TF was involved in an outside business interest. When presented with evidence that he was, in fact, an officer and director of an unrelated company named L.P. Lewis, he begrudgingly admitted that he was involved in an outside business interest, and that he did not seek defendant’s consent to engage in such activity, in clear violation of Defendant’s code.
More troubling is the fact, Farrell acknowledges that while sitting on the board of directors of L.P. Lewis, he was involved in and approved the decision for LP Lewis to file suit against Baycare and St. Anthony’s Hospital existing customers of LabCorp. Both the suit and TF'S involvement with L.P. Lewis were clearly in the public domain, and even TF concedes that such activity violated Defendant’s conflict of interest policy.