Neary v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Thomas J. Neary (plaintiff) was an employee of Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Prudential) (defendant). While employed at Prudential, Neary engaged in union activities. Neary was known to associate with another Prudential insurance agent named Francis Plante, who considered himself a whistleblower. Plante was terminated by Prudential. In turn, Plante sued Prudential, and Prudential deposed Neary as part of its defense against Plante. During the deposition, Neary admitted to sharing commissions with Plante. About one month later, Prudential terminated Neary, allegedly based on his admitted conduct that violated company policy. After being terminated, Neary sued Prudential for wrongful termination, and the matter was ordered to arbitration. Prudential filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it legitimately terminated Neary for violating company policy. In opposition, Neary produced evidence supporting his claim that he was terminated for engaging in protected union activity. For instance, Prudential’s documents referred to Neary as a “union instigator,” and disciplinary records procured by Neary of other Prudential agents showed that employees were not always terminated for sharing commissions. At the summary-judgment hearing, the panel took testimony from Neary, questioning him at length about why he did not disclose the sharing of commissions with Plante to Prudential. The panel granted Prudential’s motion for summary judgment without providing its rationale. In court, Neary moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the legal standard on summary judgment.