Civil Action No. _______
KEITH S. GIBBY
Plaintiff
vs.
Defendant
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, KEITH S. GIBBY, by and through counsel, Van Grack, Axelson & Williamowsky, P.C. and Bruce M. Bender and Gary Simpson and sues International Business Machines Corporation (hereinafter "IBM") and as grounds therefor states as follows:
1. Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the State of Maryland residing in North Potomac, Maryland.
2. Defendant (IBM) is a corporation doing substantial business within the State of Maryland. Plaintiff was employed with the Defendant IBM from June, 1984 through June, 1994.
3. Throughout Plaintiff's time at IBM, the Defendant IBM had in place what was known as an "IBM Suggestion Plan". The scope of said Suggestion Plan is detailed in a brochure distributed to employees. (See copy of brochure attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.)
4. That the Plaintiff received said brochure from the Defendant many years ago and said brochure is entitled, "Your ideas have value." The brochure states the purpose of the Suggestion Plan is to entice employees to submit ideas to management to "help the company run its operations better, and perhaps save it money."
5. Further, the brochure states that if so, (i.e., the suggestion helps the company run its operations better and saves it money), it may earn you an award from $50.00 to $150,000.00 under the IBM Suggestion Plan. (See Section 1.0 of Exhibit A).
6. That further, Plaintiff was an IBM Manager in 1989-90 and as a result had access to several other documents entitled: (a) Manger's Manual, Sections .02, .03, 2-24, 4-23, and 8-01; and (b) Evaluator's Guide (See Exhibits B & C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).
7. That these documents further reinforce the Suggestion Plan's intent to pay monies to IBM employees for suggestions.
8. Plaintiff submitted a suggestion to establish a centralized purchasing information repository on a pre-printed suggestion form provided by IBM and said suggestion was given Suggestion No. 921420144. Said suggestion was also submitted for another organization (i.e. Personnel) and given Suggestion No. 923090008. Both of said suggestions will be referred to collectively as Suggestion No. 1.
9. Plaintiff's Suggestion No. 1 provided the earliest documented statement of the problem and solution to IBM and was accepted for evaluation by IBM's Suggestion Department.
10. On or about July 22, 1993, Plaintiff was first provided information that IBM in fact implemented Plaintiff's Suggestion No. 1 of a centralized purchasing information depository entitled "Procurement Information Repository" and "IPSWOW."
11. Upon information and belief, said Suggestion No. 1 saved IBM several million dollars.
12. Despite numerous requests for payment under the Suggestion Plan, the Defendant has on numerous occasions denied Plaintiff's request for payment under the Suggestion Plan based upon contentions that the suggestion (i.e. Suggestion No. 1) is "predated by another suggestion." Said contention of IBM is false.
13. IBM has also denied the suggestion contending that the suggestion is an idea on a "subject periodically re-examined by management" or deals with a "subject in the maturing process." Said suggestion clearly does not involve any of the above categories. Finally, IBM denied the suggestion claiming that it was not aware of the existence of Suggestion No. 1 when "IPSWOW" and "Procurement Information Repository" were implemented. However, said assertions are contrary to IBM's own documents which do not require knowledge to be awarded money for a suggestion.
14. In addition, Plaintiff submitted another suggestion, No. 910650023, recommending that IBM Publishing Services value analyze routine general information, non-promotional, internal use publications, documents and forms within their span of control by simplifying a number of their publications. Said suggestion was also submitted for another organization (i.e. Personnel) and given Suggestion No. 923040100. Both of said Suggestions will be collectively referred to as Suggestion No. 2.
15. Once again, this suggestion has been implemented and saved IBM millions of dollars upon information and belief.
16. IBM has once again refused to honor its agreement and pay the Plaintiff any monies pursuant to the Suggestion Plan.
17. Finally, Plaintiff recommended numerous other suggestions, Suggestion No. 923040048-49, 923040051-55, 923040058, 923040061-64, 923040066, 9203040071-80, 923040082, 923040085, 923040088, 923040091, 923040093-94, 923040097-99, 923040101-102, 923040104-106, 923040108-110, 923040112-114, 923040116, 923090009, 923090017, 923090022, 923090024-31, 923090033 and 923040097. These Suggestions will be referred to collectively as Suggestion No. 3. He also recommended Suggestion No.'s 923090007, 923090009, 923090023 and 923090032. These suggestions will be collectively referred to as Suggestion No. 4.
18. Suggestion No. 3 recommended that IBM Publication Controlling Parties (CPs) simplify the production and distribution of routine, general information, non-promotional, internal use publications, documents and forms within their span of control. Each of these suggestions involved the same idea but were for a specific IBM CP.
19. Suggestion No. 4 recommended that the IBM Publishing Services audit BOIS abstracts for the publication's softcopy "access string" and communicate the need to both CPs and informal Information Developers (IDs) the need to register their information in BOIS. Each of these suggestions also involved the same idea but were for a specific IBM organization.
20. Suggestion Nos. 3-4 also have been implemented and saved IBM several million dollars upon information and belief.
21. For all of these suggestions Plaintiff has attempted to resolve this matter through "non-mandatory" IBM internal procedures for employee complaints and/or grievances such as the "Speak Up and Open Door Programs." However, his grievances regarding his request for payments have been turned down by IBM decision makers in these processes. Thus, he has exhausted his remedies within IBM.
22. Plaintiff realleges all of the foregoing paragraphs numbers 1 through 21 as stated in full.
23. Defendant's brochure, Exhibit A, entitled "Your ideas have value", constitutes a unilateral offer. Plaintiff accepted the unilateral offer when he submitted a suggestion. The Plaintiff reasonably believed that the Defendant would evaluate the value of his ideas to Defendant and pay him the reasonable value of said ideas and suggestions in good faith. Defendant breached its duty to offer Plaintiff a reasonable sum per IBM's published award methodology (see Plan, Exhibit A) for the value of his suggestions and in so doing breached its agreement with Plaintiff.
24. Plaintiff was injured by Defendant's breach of the contract for each of the above suggestions in the amount of $150,000.00 per each set of collective suggestions (i.e. Nos. 1-4).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in the amount of
$600,000.00 plus interest and costs of this action.
25. Plaintiff realleges all of the foregoing paragraphs numbers 1 through 24 as stated in full.
26. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the Defendant's representations that he would be treated fairly in terms of compensation should he make a valuable suggestion to Defendant. Plaintiff made the above suggestions to his employer based upon the belief that he would be compensated fairly and reasonably per IBM's published award methodology if the suggestion had value. The Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff was compensated fairly and reasonably per Defendant's own published award methodology for the value of suggestions he made.
27. The Defendant made a false statement of material fact to the Plaintiff (or failed to disclose a material fact) in that it had no intention to fairly and reasonably compensate plaintiff per its own published award methodology for the suggestions despite saving the Defendant millions of dollars.
28. The Defendant intended that the Plaintiff would rely on its offer of fair and reasonable compensation per its own published award methodology to Plaintiff's ultimate detriment.
29. The Plaintiff in fact did reasonably rely upon the offers of fair and reasonable compensation per its own published award methodology and submitted the suggestions to the Defendant as stated above.
30. The Plaintiff sustained damages of $150,000.00 for each suggestion as a direct result of Defendant's negligent misrepresentations as set forth above. Plaintiff has sustained total damages in the amount of $600,000.00 for compensatory damages.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $600,000.00 plus interest and for the costs of this action.
Respectfully Submitted,
VAN GRACK, AXELSON & WILLIAMOWSKY, P.C.
By:___________________________________
Bruce M. Bender
110 N. Washington Street
5th Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
(301) 738-7660
LAW OFFICES OF GARY H. SIMPSON
By:________________________________________
Gary H. Simpson
9505 Kingsley Avenue
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
KEITH S.GIBBY )
)
Plaintiff )
)
vs. ) Civil Action No. _______
)
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES )
CORPORATION )
)
Defendant )
)
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.
________________________________________
Bruce M. Bender
Civil Action No. _______
KEITH S. GIBBY
Plaintiff
vs.
Defendant
Please issue a Summons for Defendant, International Business Machines Corporation directed to Resident Agent of the corporation:
Please return the Summons to the undersigned for service by private process.
Respectfully Submitted,
VAN GRACK, AXELSON & WILLIAMOWSKY, P.C.
By:___________________________________
Bruce M. Bender
110 N. Washington Street
5th Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
(301) 738-7660