Judge Says Ex-Wells Fargo Employee's Tax Returns Discoverable in Dispute Over FMLA Settlement
A Montgomery County judge said a former Wells Fargo bank manager should be compelled to hand over her tax returns in a breach of contract action she filed arising out of a Family and Medical Leave Act settlement she entered into with the bank.
March 15, 2018 at 04:21 PM
3 minute read
A Montgomery County judge said a former Wells Fargo bank manager should be compelled to hand over her tax returns in a breach of contract action she filed arising out of a Family and Medical Leave Act settlement she entered into with the bank.
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas P. Rogers penned the opinion urging the state Superior Court to quash Vaishali P. Riley's appeal of the court's order directing Riley to produce her tax returns.
Wells Fargo settled the FMLA case for $33,500. As part of the agreement, Riley executed a W-9 form listing her address as Sugarland, Texas, Rogers said.
She was sent a check and a payment stub that identified her address as Yardley, Pennsylvania, instead of Sugarland. According to Rogers, Riley's lawyer notified Wells Fargo of the perceived errors but the bank refused to make any changes to the IRS paperwork.
Riley filed a claim in magisterial district court and was awarded an additional $22,500, including court costs and attorney fees. She then sued again for breach of contract, which gave rise to the dispute over her tax returns.
“At the heart of this matter is a fundamental disagreement as to whether the proceeds of Ms. Riley's 2014 settlement are subject to federal and Pennsylvania taxation,” Rogers said.
According to Rogers, Wells Fargo sought in discovery Riley's income tax returns for the tax years 2013 through 2015. Riley disputed the request, questioning its relevancy to the case, and Wells Fargo filed a motion to compel.
Rogers granted the motion and ordered Riley to produce the documents. However, she appealed, arguing that the tax returns are not relevant to her breach of contract alleging Wells Fargo put fraudulent information on tax documents.
But Riley said his order granting Wells Fargo's motion to compel is not appealable as a collateral order.
“The appropriate question here is whether the court's order granting Wells Fargo's motion to compel discovery requests for Ms. Riley's tax returns for the years 2013 through 2015 is separable and collateral to the main causes of action, breach of the 2014 settlement agreement and tax fraud,” Rogers said.
“Specifically,” he continued, “terms of the settlement agreement required Wells Fargo to deduct all applicable withholding taxes and payroll deductions from the payment for claims for lost wages. Upon review, the undersigned concludes that there is a common thread connecting Ms. Riley's 2013 through 2015 tax returns to the subject matter of claims she has brought against Wells Fargo.”
Norristown tax lawyer Alan B. Kane represents Riley in the suit.
“Obviously we filed the appeal and don't believe it should be quashed,” Kane said. “We think it's ripe for the Superior Court to review the issues. Looking at his order over a year after the appeal being filed, it was really lacking in specificity as to how those tax returns had any relevance to this particular case; particularly because Ms. Riley supplied Wells Fargo with a W-9 as required by law, so Wells Fargo had all the information they needed to properly prepare the W-2.”
Paul Lancaster Adams of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, who represents Wells Fargo, did not respond to a request for comment.
(Copies of the 11-page opinion in Riley v. Wells Fargo, PICS No. 18-0315, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRisk Mitigation: Employee Engagement Results in Fewer Lawsuits (and Other Benefits)
5 minute readMatt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250