Corporate Bully Gets in the Doghouse

There was an interesting case decided last year which deals with a former employee suing the employer for interfering with his ability to get another job.

Kevin Drouillard worked for Cogeco Cable in the Windsor area for 15 years.  He resigned to pursue other opportunities.  About 2 years later, he sought work with Mastec, a company which provided services to Cogeco. 

In the Windsor area, Cogeco had a virtual monopoly on the cable and fibre optic business.  In the area, Cogeco was, by far, Mastec’s largest customer.

Mr. Drouillard was hired and fired twice by Mastec.  On both occasions, Cogeco told Mastec that Drouillard was not permitted to work on Cogeco premises or equipment.  As Cogeco was Mastec’s biggest customer, Mastec could not easily employ Drouillard under those limitations, so they dismissed him. 

Given Cogeco’s monopoly in the area, Drouillard could not find any work in his field.

Drouillard sued Cogeco for interfering with his ability to earn income.  It came out that, while Drouillard was employed by Cogeco, he had tried to bring in a union.  He was later subjected to a smear job by his supervisor and manager.  He went above their heads with a detailed memo rebutting the allegations made against him.  As a result, the manager was fired and Cogeco apologized to Drouillard.

The supervisor, it turns out, was the one who was telling Mastec that it would be in Mastec’s best interest if they not employ Drouillard.

Drouillard could not get another job in the field.  Three years later, he got another job as a train conductor.  He sued Cogeco.  The court found that he would have made about $45,000 per year.

He was awarded about $137,000 for lost income.  However, the judge did not stop there.  He also awarded about $63,000 for humiliation, loss of reputation and lost career.  The total award was $200,000 and the judge awarded increased legal costs to Drouillard.

The court effectively found that Cogeco, through the actions of a vindictive supervisor, had “blacklisted” Drouillard. 

What is important is that the damages for interfering with his employment amounted to over four times his annual income.  Why is that?

Damages for interfering with economic relations are not limited.  Any losses caused by the wrongful conduct will be recoverable. 

What can we learn from this case?

1) Don’t do anything to prevent former employees from pursuing their careers (unless you have a valid covenant from them that they intend to breach – that has been a topic of past columns);
2) Using contacts and influence to pull strings to cause harm to others (or to benefit yourself, a la MFP) is never a good idea; and
3) Letting your personal dislike of a former employee determine your course of action is like a boomerang.

Another way of describing the case is that the corporate bully (Cogeco) got a corporate “time out” for using its economic influence against Mastec and Drouillard. 

It sure puts the “justice” back into the justice system, doesn’t it?