You may innocently believe that judge will play a fair role in a court. But this story, supported by substantial documentary evidences filed in the courts, shows that it is often not true. Unfortunately, defending your rights to be paid may be disastrous.
As requested by IBM, Wang performed services for IBM in Massachusetts in 2008 [1]. However, IBM refused to pay him for his earned wages. Because contending for his rights to be paid, IBM not only refused to pay him for his services performed, but also terminated his work [2] in retaliation. Furthermore, IBM subsequently rejected each and every his job applications [3], over a hundred times for about hundred jobs sought by IBM, continued for more than four years.
Eventually, Wang's wage claims were dismissed in Massachusetts state courts. Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal "for substantially those in the brief of the defendants". In said brief, IBM pleaded that "The Superior Court's determination that the parties agreed to settle and report the case as settled", and parties should not be "allowed to back out of their agreements". In Superior Court's pleadings, IBM pleaded that "there is no question that the parties agreed on the material terms of settlement", "The e-mail exchange of June 3, 2023 sufficed to create a binding agreement between the parties", and "the Plaintiff should be held to his agreement that the parties would settle this litigation". However, when eventually coming to implement said settlement agreement that the courts' orders based on, (it may surprise a ordinary person,) IBM refused to honor the agreement to pay the settlement amount, and simply backed "out of their agreements" .
Under our constitution, "It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit." However, in this case, the judges blatantly breached their constitutional duties of "impartial interpretation of the laws". Consequently, Wang's constitutional rights, including his earned wages, were unjustly deprived without the equal protection of the laws.
Background
[1] Massachusetts Wage Act expressly provides: "Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly or bi-weekly each such employee the wages earned by him ... any employee discharged from such employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge ". Therefore, in Massachusetts, employers are required to pay their employees timely. However, even after terminating Wang, IBM refused to him the wages earned by him.
Massachusetts Wage Act further provides: "an individual performing any service, ... shall be considered to be an employee." The language of the statutory scheme is clear, it makes it a crime for employers not to pay wages owed to their employees. Therefore, if Wang actually performed "any service", the employers "shall pay" Wang at least "in full on the day of his discharge" pursuant to said laws.
After interviewed by IBM, Wang was offered for a work of Storage-Area-Network Engineer of IBM for initial full-time one-year duration (Exhibits 27-28 of Summary Judgment Joint Appendix, Mass Middlesex Superior Court MICV2009-04616, "SJA"). Wang was assigned to work with other IBM workers (in the world, including New Jersey, New York, and in Argentina) for transferring computer center operation Novartis Corp to IBM workers (Exh 31-37, SJA). As requested, Wang reviewed thousands of pages of Novartis' documents, evaluated hundreds of computer storage systems located in Novartis East Hanover (New Jersey) data center, and submitted a written report to IBM's managers, Sandra G. Blackwell (telephone: 877-516-9706 or tl/349-0624) and Thomas Calise via the laptop computer provided by IBM.
back to top
[2] Wang's work was terminated on March 28, 2008 as a result of fighting for his rights under the laws (the federal law of FLSA and Massachusetts law of Wage Act). The statutes expressly state, "No employee shall be penalized by an employer in any way as a result of any action on the part of an employee to seek his or her rights under the wages and hours provisions of this chapter." Clearly, the termination violated these laws.
In behalf of IBM, its agent (Artech) requested Wang to sign a proposed employment agreement . Wang contented the employment agreement proposed by IBM's agent violates said wages laws, therefore, is unlawful. Specifically, Section of Arbitration of the proposed Agreement states, "Employee explicitly agrees that any dispute ... shall be exclusively subject to final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of New Jersey Permanent Statutes section 2A:24-1, et seq. ... Such arbitration shall be held in Morristown, New Jersey. EMPLOYEE AGREES AND UNDERSTAND THAT BY AGREEING TO THIS BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION, EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER THEIR RIGHTS TO CIVIL LITIGATION, A TRIAL BY JURY AND ANY ASSOCIATED RIGHTS OF APPEAL." Clearly, it was articulated to evade Massachusetts employment statutes that expressly states, "No person shall, for the purpose of evading this chapter, establish any arrangement or organization in his business, by contract, lease or agreement, whether written or oral, whereby a person who would otherwise be his employee does not have the status of such an employee." Clearly, the agreement proposed by IBM is articulated to evade Massachusetts employment statutes by forcing its employees to enter such an unlawful arrangement in Massachusetts.
back to top
[3] After said retaliatory termination, Wang filed the complaints with Attorney General, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against the employers. Subsequently, in retaliation, IBM rejected each and every his job applications, over a hundred times for about hundred jobs sought by IBM, continued for more than four years. Said job applications include five times interviewed by IBM managers (Exh 63-69, SJA), dozen times each year, at least four times in 2011 alone.
back to top
Read More in Detail