No. 02 C 8671 Page 4

Notwithstanding Nord’s use of the term “pro-ration” in the letter, the evidence shows
that defendant based its bonuses on the amount of business an employee brought to the firm.
As a result, the duration of an employment was a factor in the final bonus amount, though not
a determinative one. Because he worked for defendant for a short period of time, plaintiffs
performance in 2000 consisted only of the completion of a deal and did not involve any
origination of business. Defendant determined that $60,000 was an appro; priate bonus for his
work and we are not in the position to review its business decision.

This claim is necessarily intertwined with the breach-of-contract claim. Plaintiff does
not claim that Bonomo and Jackson misrepresented the role of original business in the bonus
structure when recruiting him. Indeed, it would be difficult for him to make such a claim. At
the time of the meeting all parties assumed that plaintiff would be employed by GATX for a
long period of time, originate business and collect bonuses. Accordingly, there was no
particular reason to highlight the difference in bonuses for the different types of work. As it
turned out, however, plaintiff worked for the defendant for less than a year and never reaped
the rewards of bringing in a substantial amount of business. Absent such a contribution by
the plaintiff, he points to nothing in the evidence that would indicate he was promised such a
bouus or that he was materially misled about the bonus process.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Borin

JAMES B. MORAN
nior Judge, U. S. District Court

Meck J6 , 2004.


No. 02 C 8671 Page3

Plaintiff does not prove that defendant breached the employment contract in any way.
He was paid the base salary and the signing bonus, as required by the letter. He also received
an additional bonus of $10,000, resulting in a total bonus of $60,000 for 2000. Even assuming
the truth of plaintiff’s assertions concerning the meeting with Bonomo and Jackson, he fails
to show that there was a valid contract requiring defendant to pay him any additional amount.
At best, he proves that outstanding employees received bonuses based on some multiple of
their salaries. He claims that his work in 2000, despite the fact that he did not begin working
until November, rose to this level. Even if true, he does not prove the existence of any
statement in which defendant promised to pay him a similar amount based on his performance.

Likewise, he fails to prove fraudulent concealment. In Ilinois, such a claim requires
that the plaintiff demonstrates (1) the concealment of a material fact; (2) the concealment was
intended to induce a false belief; (3) the innocent party could not have discovered the truth
through a reasonable inquiry; (4) the injured party would have acted differently had he known
the truth; and (5) the reliance caused the damage. Schrager v. North Community Bank, 767
N.E.2d 376, 384 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2002).

Plaintiff claims that defendant never told him that his bonuses would be based on a pro-
rated salary, even though a subsequent letter from GATX employee Thomas Nord indicated
that his bonus was calculated in that way. He alleges that had defendant disclosed this
information he would not have accepted the employment offer. Again, plaintiff had no
contractually enforceable right to receive any bonus other than the $50,000 signing bonus.
Plaintiff does not demonstrate how defendant could have fraudulently represented its process

of calculating bonuses that it had no obligation to pay.


~~ slie Order Form (0897)

le

United States District Court, Northern District of Hlinois

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Oth
ror Magistrate Jndge James B. Moran than Assigued Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 8671 DATE 3/16/2004
CASE DAVID BOND vs. GATX FINANCIAL CORPORATION
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
(yy oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due. :
4 oOo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) oa Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OC) FRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao & [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment as to both claims is granted.
(il) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
‘No notices required. number of notices
Notices maited by judge's staff MAR 17 20
Notified counsel by telephone. pen
o |  Docketing to mail notices. 1 5
| Mail A0 450 form. docketing deputy iniliake \
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
date mailed notice.
courtroom
LG deputy’s
initials
> en, ., Date/time received in
i ~ceatral Clerk's Office aling deputy silat
= —



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID BOND, ) * }
Plaintiff, ) WRT ii
vs. } No. 02 C 8671
GATX FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ;
Defendant. ,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff David Bond brought this two-count complaint alleging breach of contract and
fraudulent concealment. Defendant GATX Financial Corporation (GATX) filed 2 motion for
summary judgment as to both claims. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is
granted.

BA RO

In Late 2000, plaintiff received two offers of employment: one from the defendant and
another from Strong Capital Management. While deciding which of the offers to accept,
plaintiff had a meeting with GATX employees Dean Bonomo and Kathy Jackson. Bonomo
and Jackson allegedly told plaintiff about GATX’s bonus structure, under which an employee
who performs in an outstanding manner may receive a bonus of up to three times his or her
base salary. Additionally, GATX, through Bonomo and Jackson, promised plaintiff a signing
bonus of $50,000, payable on March 1, 2001.

Plaintiff received from defendant a letter detailing the terms of the employment offer,

which he signed. The letter guaranteed plaintiff a base salary of $125,000, and the signing

Iq



No. 02 C 8671 Page 2

bonus of $50,000. It also provided that he was eligible to participate in defendant’s incentive
bonus plan “from your first day of employment.” Plaintiff began working for GATX on
November 27, 2000. Shortly after he started work, plaintiff was assigned to an important and
valuable deal that needed to be completed before the end of the year, Plaintiff worked hard
to successfully complete the project and was told that he did a very good job in doing so.

In early 2001, defendant paid bonuses to its employees. In addition to the $50,000
guaranteed by the contract, defendant received $10,000 for his work in the last month of 2000.
He now claims, however, that he should have received a bonus of three times his base salary
of $125,000. Alternatively, he claims that defendant, when trying to get him to accept its offer,
fraudulently concealed the process it uses to calculate bonuses by failing to tell him that it
would be based on a pro-rated salary.

DISCUSSION
The court’s function in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is merely to

determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Only if the evidence on file shows that no such issue exists and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law will the motion be granted. Celotex
Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Bennett v. Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 694 (7 Cir.
2002).

In order to prove breach of contract, the plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a valid,
enforceable contract; (2) performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4)

resulting damages. Henderson-Smith & Associates, Inc. vy. Nahamani Family Service Center,

Inc, 752 N.E.2d 33, 43 (Il. App. 1 Dist. 2002).