Title: Trepanier v. Getting Organized Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-165


Albert Trepanier, et al                      Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal From
     v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

Getting Organized, Inc. and                  June Term, 1989
Tommy Styles


James L. Morse, J.

Francis X. Murray, John T. Leddy and William F. Ellis of McNeil, Murray &
  Sorrell, Inc., Burlington, for plaintiffs-appellants

Allan R. Keyes of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for defendants-
  appellees


PRESENT:  Dooley, J. and Barney, C.J. (Ret.), Keyser, J. (Ret.) and
          Springer, D.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs, former employees or representatives of former
employees of Nordic Ford, Inc., appeal a superior court order dismissing
their suit against defendants Getting Organized, Inc. (GO, Inc.) and Tommy
Styles, an "efficiency firm" and its agent, who were hired by Nordic to
improve flagging motor vehicle sales and who advised Nordic to fire
plaintiffs.  In dismissing the complaint and granting summary judgment in
favor of defendants, the court ruled that the doctrine of collateral
estoppel precluded plaintiffs from relitigating any of the counts brought in
their complaint, since the gravamen of the complaint is age discrimination
and a federal district court jury had already determined that Nordic did not
fire plaintiffs because of their age.  We affirm in part and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
     The facts of this case are related in some detail in a 1986 companion
case, Payne v. Rozendaal, 147 Vt. 488,