From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...
Neuder v. Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
194 F.R.D. 289 (2000)
Stanley Neuder (plaintiff) worked for Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Battelle) (defendant) for nine years before the company terminated his employment. Neuder sued for wrongful termination as well as discriminatory and retaliatory conduct based on age and disability. Essentially Neuder alleged that Battelle retaliated against him for taking sick leave. Battelle countered that it terminated Neuder for failing to comply with Battelle policies, not completing daily time sheets or an ethics course, and using excessive sick leave. Battelle said its Personnel Action Review Committee (PARC) made the decision to terminate Neuder. First, Neuder’s supervisor gave him a written warning about alleged performance-related shortcomings. Next, the supervisor talked to a human-resources manager to plan appropriate action to take against Neuder, and the two asked the PARC to convene a meeting. Battelle’s senior attorney, David Maestas, attended all PARC meetings as a nonvoting member in accordance with Battelle’s bylaws. At the first meeting, the PARC decided to obtain an independent medical examination and suspend Neuder. After receiving the examination report, Battelle convened a second PARC meeting, and the human-resources manager sent a letter terminating Neuder’s employment. Battelle objected to discovery about the meetings and documents sent to Maestas on attorney-client-privilege grounds, claiming Maestas acted in a legal capacity at the meetings. However, evidence showed PARC meetings primarily served to terminate employees, not to obtain legal advice. Battelle’s policy specified that the PARC convened to approve proposed terminations, and the supervisor, the human-resources manager, and Neuder’s termination letter all said the PARC terminated Neuder. After reviewing Battelle’s privilege log and the documents it listed, the magistrate judge found only some reflected they were sent to obtain or provide legal advice. The magistrate found the remainder not privileged despite reflecting communications from the PARC meetings. Both parties asked for reconsideration of the magistrate’s discovery decisions.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Urbina, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 556,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 556,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.