Mr. Konop,
I don't know your clients, but I certainly don't understand the need for additional plaintiffs. If you are reclassifying your suit as class action, then just say so.
What I'm seeing between the lines here is that you don't think you will even gain a court date without other folks getting involved in an effort to validate your clients' claims. I'm not an attorney, but I thought that's what subpoenas were for.
I hope your clients' claims are well documented, CVG attorneys love that old duces tecum routine.
Good luck in your effort.
posted by DoknowDocare at 04:13 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
DoknowDocare - English - please - for the rest of us. Just as an aside, with no legal merit or standing, many Convergy rank and file employees were my customers, about 25 in all. Their complaints regarding their employment conditions were pretty uniform. I heard many stories similar to those reported by Mr. Konop's clients. However, it remains to be seen how committed these people would be to follow through with a long court case.
posted by holland at 08:11 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
DUCES TECUM - Bring with thee. A writ commonly called a subpoena duces tecum, commanding the person to whom it is directed to bring with him some writings, papers, or other things therein specified and described, to a deposition, to counsel for litigants in an action, or before the court.
In general, all relevant papers in the possession of the witness must be produced, but to this general rule there are exceptions. E.g., attorneys and solicitors who hold the papers of their clients cannot be compelled to produce them, unless the client could have been so compelled; neither can documents that are covered by the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
posted by psyche777 at 08:58 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
You are correct, Psyche. BUT - if the opposing counsel serves Duces Tecum, the plaintiffs will be expected to produce any and all documentation that will support their claim. At least that has been my experience in the past. Hence, I don't throw ANYthing away. ;-)
I have some (un)fond memories of duces tecum depositions and trial time. If you can't produce the 'evidence' to support your claim then you are pretty much a lame duck.
I didn't have to do that when I did battle with CVGs lawyers. They just offered up a settlement (after being served notice by the NLRB) and once we agreed on the 'terms' the deal was done.
I wish these kids luck, but I'm not sure this dog's gonna hunt.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:45 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
What does duces tecum have to do with the process of discovery? In prosecuting a corporation, the only real evidence is likely to be found in the corporation's records. Unless the judge sees fit to deny the reasonable suspicion that Convergys did NOT employ as many people as they agreed they would, as well as the details of insufficient training, then it seems rational that discovery must follow -- putting the onus upon the defense (i.e. the corporation), NOT the plainitff.
If I'm wrong, explain how. I'd certainly agree that anyone can file a lawsuit, hence the filing is not proof of wrongdoing ... but at a certain point Convergys itself is going to have to produce documents through the process of discovery.
posted by GuestZero at 01:14 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
Also ... DoknowDocare, it is my understanding that a class action is at the Federal level, and the suit filed by Mr Konop is at the state level. I'd judge that a class action would also take significantly more time to resolve. So nothing here seems incorrect or inappropriate to me. What problem are you trying to imply exists when you said that you "don't understand the need for additional plaintiffs"?
posted by GuestZero at 01:21 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
Guest Zero - you also are correct.
In MY experiences it is not always the sole responsibility of either party to produce ALL the required info. I apologize if I didn't make this clear. I just know that when it's depo time that you can be required to bring any and all documentation that supports your side of the claim.
Also, class action is FILED at a federal level, but is generally initiated by one primary law firm. This can be done in concert with cooperating firms in other states as I understand it. And - yes - class action can take many years to resolve, but sometimes groups feel that the reward, monetary or otherwise, will be worth it.
And lastly, if these two folks believe they have enough cause for their suit and that the facts will withstand scrutiny, then I personally don't understand the need for additional plaintiffs. I DO understand that they have the right to pursue their claim. And more power to them!
I, personally, don't have a good gut feeling about the outcome of the suit. I hope I'm wrong, and only time will tell. Like I said before - I wish them luck.
posted by DoknowDocare at 06:51 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
That's fair enough, DoknowDocare.
Also, as an important side note, this meeting on Thursday is an especially good time for the 1 or 2 posters who had the balls in previous threads to claim Mr Lucius and Ms Bosh are lying about things like pay and benefits. To these folk I say: come in and accuse them in person. Get the facts, or deliver them. You don't even have to identify yourself; just come in as a face, not a name.
posted by GuestZero at 04:40 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
They won't have the balls.
posted by Foolkiller at 06:04 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
Another 'observation' from the gallery - why have these two waited this long to pursue this? Is the statute of limitations coming up and they don't want to miss the deadline?
In my opinion the OPTIMUM time to have filed this suit would have been when CVG first closed the doors and was still highly visible in Toledo.
As for the 'accusers'...well, it would seem that if they have a genuine interest in the outcome they will make a trip over to the library. Personally, I don't know either of the plaintiffs since I was long gone when they were hired and their case is obviously very different in fact as to their claim.
Good luck to all involved. The outcome will make interesting reading, if nothing else.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:22 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
DoknowDocare wrote: Another 'observation' from the gallery - why have these two waited this long to pursue this? Is the statute of limitations coming up and they don't want to miss the deadline?
In my opinion the OPTIMUM time to have filed this suit would have been when CVG first closed the doors and was still highly visible in Toledo.
While I wish the individuals good luck in this endeavor, I can't help but believe, as I said before, that this has more to do with Konop's political career than with the case itself.
Call me cynical if you want, but I believe that's the answer to your question.
posted by intrepid at 11:20 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
Intrepid - ya just might be right on the money!
posted by DoknowDocare at 04:41 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
Are you folks really telling me that you somehow don't understand the impossibility of filing a lawsuit right out of being unemployed from a low-paying job? I could only imagine that if pro bonos were offered at the time, that prior Convergys people would have taken those routes ... but as it was, there were no such offers to my knowledge.
I had to watch my friend's life go down the tubes after Convergys. I'm sure this happened to too many others from Convergys. Filing a lawsuit was a financial impossibility. Period.
At any rate, anyone with any such questions is free to come by at 7pm today and pose them. Alas, I can't make it due to a prior appointment, although I did print up the flyers.
P.S. As for the ambitions of Mr Konop ... if he is willing to exchange pro bono work for a public reputation, then I fail to see what's wrong with that. Is it somehow more moral to exchange paid work for a public reputation?
posted by GuestZero at 04:19 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 25, 2005 #
GuestZero - I understand what you are saying, but have to point out that there are/were other avenues available to pursue claims against CVG.
I did it - without a pro-bono atty or a paid one. Government offices are a good thing at times.
I'm just sorry so many folks didn't pursue their claims earlier. Lots of sleepless nights could have been avoided.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:12 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 25, 2005 #
GuestZero - please read my previous posts...if the pro bono work was truly altruistic, then press conferences and rallies wouldn't be needed. It's those actions that make my cynical about the whole thing.
I'm all for the former workers getting their day in court and their due...and I made no reference to the morality of Konop's actions!
I just believe there's more to this than meets the eye... and if these former workers are being used (for Konop's political purposes), they are being used with their knowledge and consent, so I don't have a problem with THAT either.
But mark my words, Konop will use this lawsuit, in one way or another, in his next run at public office.
posted by intrepid at 05:28 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 25, 2005 #
Does anyone have a report on Thursday evening's rally?
posted by jr at 06:36 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 26, 2005 #
Don't know how the rally went, but saw Mr. Konop at a political fundraiser at approx. 6:00 - 6:30.
He certainly didn't appear all that comfortable.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:19 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 26, 2005 #
Intrepid, I remain mystified about your implied demand that pro bono work be altruistic. If that's truly the case with you, then Mr Konop (who has run for office before, at least against Oxley in 2004) may never be able to perform pro bono work that satisfies you.
I expect Mr Konop to add this Convergys lawsuit to his resume, and I also expect him to tout his experience if seeking another political office. Should he avoid doing so, and if so, why should we expect him to?
You mentioned the press conference. Do you have any idea how hard it is even FINDING people who worked at Convergys without media exposure? What's so terrible about that?
The plaintiffs to my knowledge are not paying for the (desired) legal services they are receiving. If Mr Konop is successful with the case -- thereby increasing his reputation -- then why is this whole thing NOT a morally valid exchange of value? The plaintiffs have an agenda; I could see this clearly by knowing one of them and by having met the other. Mr Konop probably has one (or more) too. Heck, I printed up the flyers, and have volunteered to run at least one Blade ad about the matter, so I also have an agenda.* What's so dirty or reprehensible about all of this?
Not to lambast you, Intrepid, but is it because citizens are suing a corporation? Is that what disturbs you?
What is important (and has yet to be officially established) are the complete facts of the case, and the recovery of the funds that we believe Ohio is owed from some of these facts. This unresolved issue is due to the AGENDA of the Convergys corporation, which in my opinion involves defrauding money from state and local governments.
*I worked for Convergys until I was fired for complaining (strongly) about account fraud. YOU BETCHA that I have an agenda! In my opinion, these corporations are as dirty as coal miners and we (the citizens) must either clean them up or shut them down.
posted by GuestZero at 12:09 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 27, 2005 #
It was not a rally. It was a meeting to organize a rally. I didn't go, but the announcement explaned what it was!
posted by rednrowdywoman at 04:35 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 27, 2005 #
GuestZero - I am still trying to figure out how CVG manages to stay half a step away from fraud charges, too. I know just what you mean with 'account fraud' and can also toss in some gross violations of general labor law.
I complained vehemently about having to lie to the customers and bounce them all around just to be able to justify the numbers that were presented to the client companies. Combine that with advocating a vote for union involvement and you have the perfect recipe for a 'walk in the park' CVG style.
I feel bad for the folks that remain unemployed because of the unethical working of the beastly CVG, but found out long ago that some folks are alot more comfortable griping about things than actually doing something about them. I guess it's all about priorities and survival instincts. That's what makes us all different.
Some of us got terminated for being willing to stand up for the masses, but when we looked for support from them they had all sat back down and started taking calls just like nothing was bothering them. I guess that's how life goes...
As far as litigation goes - more power to them. I'm still a little confused about the time table, but I was gone long before they were hired, so I'm sure there are things I'm not aware of that influenced their decisions.
Signing off...direct from the Planet of Hope...
posted by DoknowDocare at 06:53 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 27, 2005 #
GuestZero - you said, "Not to lambast you, Intrepid, but is it because citizens are suing a corporation? Is that what disturbs you?
No, I don't care about the lawsuit or who is suing whom - to be more precise. And I am very interested in what the outcome will be.
You also said, "... why is this whole thing NOT a morally valid exchange of value? The plaintiffs have an agenda; I could see this clearly by knowing one of them and by having met the other. Mr Konop probably has one (or more) too. Heck, I printed up the flyers, and have volunteered to run at least one Blade ad about the matter, so I also have an agenda.* What's so dirty or reprehensible about all of this?"
I don't understand why you believe my cynicism has to do with moral values? It doesn't!
I don't see anything 'dirty' or 'reprehensible' about the individual agendas - SO LONG AS EVERYONE KNOWS THERE IS AN AGENDA, which is the point I've raised all along.
And I don't care that people mutually take advantage of others (with their knowledge and consent) to advance their own agendas - pretty much that's how the world works...some call it business, others call it trade, but mostly it's just relationships.
And I don't care if Konop uses this case on his legal resume - especially if he's successful - as others who may have similar issues would want to know of his experience as they seek legal representation.
However, when I questioned the MOTIVES of all the publicity, one poster defended the action by saying Konop was doing the work pro bono. I took that to mean that Konop could not have ulterior motives as he was doing the work for free. So I then questioned the purpose of the press conferences and announcements and rallies - if the purpose, as implied by others - was just to help the plaintiffs. I did not imply - nor mean to - that pro bono work has to be altruistic...that was implied by others and I just questioned it.
Most of the attorneys I know ( and that's quite a bunch) take on clients and represent them well. I have no doubt that Konop is a talented attorney. But most attorneys who do pro bono work don't hold press conferences about it and then use it as a basis for jumping into public office (which is what I believe Konop is doing).
I guess, GuestZero, that what it boils down to, being completely honest, is this:
I belive that Konop moved into this area in order to run for office because it's a more friendly area to someone with his political leanings. (While you may say that many people move for better job opportunities - and that point would be well taken - I don't look at elected office as a job opportunity in the traditional sense.) There's an old term for this in the political arena and that's "carpetbagger."
I believe that he knows he needs to get his name out into the community and creating a high-profile court case is one way to do it. And considering his political leanings, what better way than to sue an 'evil corporation' who took advantage of the poor workers? (note - rhetorical question using the phrases so often heard from Dems...not my personal position on the case)
I believe that the A-Team democrats are supporting this tack by appointing Konop to various positions - Gerken's tax levy review committee (which is another story in and of itself) being the main one I recall - instead of other, more qualified people.
I believe that elective office should be about public service and not self-promotion or career ladders.
I believe that, if asked, Konop would absolutely say that he agrees with this last point - but that he believes he can better serve by being in elective office...that he set his goal and is now working to achieve it - the same as others do in different fields - and why should public service/elective office be any different.
But I believe it SHOULD be different. Otherwise, we get a perspective that, I think, has given us the negative connotation to the phrase "career politician."
What it boils down to, then, is trust. I don't mind people being opportunistic in private business, but I don't want that in my public servants/elected officials who are supposed to do what's in the best interest of ALL the people, not do what's in their OWN best interests. And if you're on a career ladder, how can we be assured of this point?
So I continue to be cynical about his reasons for his actions, regardless of how appropriate the actions may be.
And please do not continue to imply morality in this position - the morals are not in question, just the motives.
And when I don't trust the motives, I will question them - and end up with good discussions like this one with you, GuestZero, which is why I joined this site.
posted by intrepid at 08:08 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 27, 2005 #
Okay, a meeting about a rally. The question still stands: Does anyone have a report on Thursday evening's "gathering?" Just curious about it. Been enough talk here about lawsuits and etc. With no report, I'm thinking nobody went.
posted by jr at 04:45 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 27, 2005 #
Intrepid...I wonder how you see this as a 'high profile court case'? Just curious!
I don't see it as such. I think it will draw interest among those participating, but overall it would not make the list of 'high profile' by any stretch of the imagination.
Ben Konop is doing the work pro bono, and that is a good thing. The legal profession counts on and encourages pro bono work from both lawyers and paralegals, civil and criminal cases.
I think the cynicism should be saved until there is something to be cynical about. At this point, it seems he is taking time out of his busy schedule to pursue this case and though I feel a bit less than positive about the final outcome based on the information presented to date on this site. If anything, it may wake up the corporate offices at Convergys to take a look at the way they do business. This case would have drawn much more interest had it been started months ago. The important thing is to get the money back into the City of Toledo coffers. That would be a feather in anyone's cap considering the state of our City Budget!
posted by rednrowdywoman at 05:36 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 27, 2005 #
Fair enough, Intrepid. As further disclosure, I saw an obit recently that listed a Ben Konop as a relative ... as well as another prominent County official. One of the plaintiffs (Ms Bosh) affrimed to me that that was the same man. Hence, he seems connected to the local political environment in more than one way.
As for the meeting, Ms Bosh said 4 others showed up. None admitted to being a blogger. I got the impression from what she said that they were all prior "Convergysts", and that there was interest in joining the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
However, it is up to Mr Konop to post results as he sees fit. After all, I wasn't there, and I get very uncertain about what to reveal in what Ms Bosh tells me.
posted by GuestZero at 04:31 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 28, 2005 #
GuestZero - Ben Konop is the son of attorney Alan Konop - either brother or brother-in-law to Sandy Isenberg. Yes, making Ben, Sandy's nephew...
those are the political connections.
And I, too, am interested in the outcome of the meeting.
posted by intrepid at 12:13 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 29, 2005 #
Ok I'm new to the site but I'm also a former Convergys employee my view is if you really want to know what is going on with the lawsuit then you need to show up at one of their meetings and ask them yourselves they are not going to post online what is going on because it could mess up the suit so I understand their not responding to any of this themselves even if they saw it online. This is a poker game if you want to see their cards then you need to ante up or fold
posted by cheezwiththatwhine at 05:15 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 29, 2005 #
So if I went to last Thursday's meeting and posted to Toledo Talk what happened at the meeting, that would have been okay? I don't get it. I thought it was a meeting about a rally. I assume the meeting was open to the public since it was advertised here.
If I had gone, I would have definitely reported here what went on that meeting. But last Thursday evening was "Parents Meet the Teachers" night at my stepdaughter's high school, so I couldn't go to the Convergys meeting. Since this is a community site, I was counting on at least one other person to update us about the meeting.
".. they are not going to post online what is going on ..."
Interesting. Something must have changed.
At 12:41 p.m. on Aug 10 psyche777 started the topic about the lawsuit against Convergys. That afternoon, I received an e-mail from Ben Konop about the lawsuit. He sent me attachments for the press release and the official complaint and plaintiffs' demands. I posted the contents of those attachments here that evening. Later that evening on Aug 10, Ben posted a comment here. Ben started his comment with:
"First off, thanks to all the former Convergys employees responding to this post."
Former Convergys employees were talking. They were posting online. 63 comments in that topic.
On Aug 22, Ben Konop started a new topic that advertised last Thursday's meeting. Ben said:
"So if you have any interest, questions, comments, or criticisms or want to get involved in any way, please stop by."
26 more comments in that topic. Two topics and at least 80 comments about Convergys and the lawsuit and whatever, and now silence about a meeting open to the public and attended by four people. Doesn't make sense.
Ben and others were proactive in providing the rest of us with information. I didn't ask for it. But now if I'm curious about something that was promoted here multiple times, I have to be the one to look into it? Forget that.
I obviously incorrectly assumed someone later last Thursday night would have updated us about the meeting. Or at least posted something, anything, on Friday. And if the discussion at the meeting was to remain private, that's fine, but why didn't someone say that here? With all the discussion here, I'm surprised I had to even ask what happened at the meeting.
It all seems strange to me. Lots of openness here prior to last Thursday, and now nothing from Ben or anyone from the meeting or from someone who knew a person at the meeting. I certainly support employees getting what they are owned if they were screwed over by a corporation. But now I'm starting to think that intrepid's observation posted on the evening of Aug 10 makes more sense:
"call me cynical, but I think this lawsuit is more about Ben Konop and his future political career than the defendents. It's common knowledge he wants to be a commissioner, but he's got no record in Toledo/Lucas County. The fact that this is called "precedent setting" and he's going after not just Taft but Petro as well says volumes. I guess I just don't believe the motives on Konop's part are pure."
The next comment after intrepid's was by Ben.
"I don't blame your cynicism and do not deny that I have an interest in future public service in Northwest Ohio. I think I have a lot to offer this community. However, the primary motivation here is to stick up for the rights of workers and taxpayers and to send a message to big corporations and the State of Ohio that this type of action is not morally acceptable."
Did any of the former Convergys employees who have posted here attend last Thursday's meeting? If not, are you at least curious what went on? And if so, did you contact Ben? Did he say keep quiet?
I think us non-Convergys people who were following the discussion with curiosity and learning what went on at Convergys, may have been duped by a big ado about nothing.
Here's a tip for the Convergys folk. The next time you have a "meeting" to promote, do it on your own website if you're not going to inform the rest us what went on at the meeting even if it's nothing more than "We can't discuss it." What's so hard about that?
posted by jr at 06:44 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 29, 2005 #
Jr, I really do appreciate your efforts to run this site. I used to run ("moderate") a Usenet newsgroup in the 1990s, so I have some practical appreciation for the overhead involved.
I'll call Mr Konop tomorrow and gently prod him to post the minutes of the meeting. I can well imagine that in a pending court case, some things have to be restricted, but according to your sentiment we TT readers are due something, sure.
I've tried posting updates on this topic before, and now consider that it's wiser to have Mr Konop do it. The idea of me compromising the case gives me the "heebie-jeebies".
posted by GuestZero at 12:33 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 30, 2005 #
Thanks GZ.
If the meeting recap is only:
"We had a good meeting, but we can't fully disclose its contents. We're moving forward, and we'll keep you informed the best we can."
That's fine. Just a little something that indicates the meeting happened.
posted by jr at 12:51 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 30, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
