On February 6, 2013, Danial Farris filed a claim againstInternational Paper Company (IP), alleging that IP failed to to payvested vacation wages upon termination.
On May 30, 2014, IP field a third-party claim against YeghiaBekiarian, a former managerial employee. IP argued that Bekiarianwas responsible for the liability for vacation wages by not onlypromising Farris that he would be entitled to paid vacation, butthen instructing human resources employees not to provide paidvacation for IP’s sales representatives, of which Farris was amember.
Bekiarian field an answer asserting that since the claim againstIP arose from Bekiarian’s actions as an employee of IP, IP wasrequired to reimburse and indemnify him.
[Daniel Farris v. International Paper Company, et ai., 2014 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 143607.]
Do you think Bekiarian should be indemnified for hisactions which led to Farris’s claims? Keep in mind that Farris didnot include Bekiarian in his action against IP. How did the courtdecide on the third-party claim between IP and Bekiarian? What wasthe court’s reasoning?
