23 F. Supp. 3d 414
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Jean Claude Delville, a perfumer, worked for Firmenich from 2000 to 2007 and had successive employment agreements (2000 Agreement and a 2007 Agreement), an Incentive Compensation Plan (ICP) for adoption-based bonuses, and a separate Secrecy Agreement requiring confidentiality and surrender of lab notes.
- In 2007 Firmenich reduced Delville to a four-day week at 80% pay under a new 2007 Agreement; Delville resigned in July 2007 and later joined Symrise. He was 58 at resignation.
- Delville sued for age discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract (ICP and CAP plan); Firmenich counterclaimed for breach of the Secrecy Agreement and related claims based on alleged destruction/theft of samples and formulas.
- After summary judgment rulings and a jury trial, the jury awarded Delville $98,691 for breach of the ICP and awarded Firmenich $1 on its Secrecy Agreement breach. The jury found for Firmenich on discrimination/retaliation claims.
- Post-trial motions: Delville sought prejudgment interest; Firmenich moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate Delville’s breach-of-contract judgment, arguing flawed jury instructions and inconsistent verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should vacate the breach-of-contract judgment under Rule 60(b) due to an allegedly flawed jury instruction | Delville argued the instruction matched the court’s prior summary-judgment formulation and no timely objection was made; no relief warranted | Firmenich argued the jury instruction omitted an element (claimant’s performance) and thus produced an erroneous verdict | Denied — Firmenich failed to timely object under Rule 51, did not show plain error or highly convincing evidence, and relief under Rule 60(b) is unwarranted |
| Whether the jury verdicts were inconsistent (Plaintiff awarded ICP damages but found to have breached Secrecy Agreement) | Delville argued the contracts are distinct and jury could find performance on Employment Agreement yet breach of Secrecy Agreement; duty-of-loyalty claim had been dismissed earlier | Firmenich argued breach of secrecy/serious misconduct should bar recovery under faithless-servant principles and make verdict inconsistent | Denied — verdicts can be reconciled; distinct contracts and no finding of disloyalty sufficient to forfeit compensation; motion untimely and not supported by highly convincing evidence |
| Choice of law for prejudgment interest on state-law supplemental claim | Delville argued New York law governs (mandatory 9% prejudgment interest) because the 2007 Agreement governed and contacts point to New York | Firmenich argued New Jersey law applies (discretionary/ lower rate), relying on earlier use of 2000 Agreement with a New Jersey choice clause | Held New York law applies — the 2007 Agreement (no choice clause) governed the damages period and New York contacts predominate; prior summary-judgment reliance on 2000 Agreement was not binding |
| Amount and period for prejudgment interest | Delville sought statutory prejudgment interest under NY CPLR at 9% from the date breach payment was due | Firmenich opposed application of NY rule and lower rate under NJ law | Awarded $54,631.55 — interest calculated at 9% from Oct. 1, 2007 (first quarter after missed payment) through Nov. 26, 2013 (final judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and disfavored)
- Turley v. Police Dep’t of City of New York, 167 F.3d 757 (2d Cir.) (courts must attempt to reconcile ostensibly inconsistent jury findings)
- Indu Craft, Inc. v. Bank of Baroda, 47 F.3d 490 (2d Cir.) (jury verdicts should not be recast by courts; deference to jury factfinding)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., 230 F.3d 549 (2d Cir.) (apply forum state choice-of-law rules; honor contract choice-of-law if sufficient contacts)
- McNally Wellman Co. v. N.Y.S. Elec. & Gas Corp., 63 F.3d 1188 (2d Cir.) (prejudgment interest accrues from breach date)
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 372 U.S. 108 (U.S.) (court must attempt to reconcile jury answers before setting verdict aside)
- Rudman v. Cowles Comm’ns, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y.) (whether agreements are mutually dependent is a fact question)
- Feiger v. Iral Jewelry, 41 N.Y.2d 928 (N.Y.) (faithless-servant doctrine can forfeit compensation where substantial disloyalty is found)