Weir v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation

MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Claims and Brief in Support

W.D. Okla.August 1, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No.: CIV-15-910-M § Oklahoma County District Court § Case No. CJ-2015-3828 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY § CORPORATION, § § Defendant. § DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT James R. Waldo – OBA #9278 JAMES R. WALDO, P.L.L.C. 512 N.W. 12th Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 PH: (405) 235-5516 Email: jwaldo@jrwaldo.com And William L. Davis, TBA No. 05563800 Jackson Lewis P.C. 500 N. Akard, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 74201 Telephone: (214) 520-2400 Facsimile: (214) 520-2008 Email: davisw@jacksonlewis.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 26 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED, MATERIAL FACTS ...................................... 3 A. Plaintiff’s First Tenure at Schlumberger. ...................................................... 3 B. Plaintiff’s Return to Schlumberger. .............................................................. 3 C. Plaintiff Asked For and Received His Retiree Medical Back. ...................... 4 D. Plaintiff Turned Down a Counteroffer from Borets. ..................................... 5 E. Plaintiff Layoff and Dispute Over Severance. .............................................. 6 F. The Severance Plan Clearly Says Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Bridged Service and Has a Limit of 26 Weeks. ............................................ 8 G. The Relocation Policy Does Not Include the Bonus or Reimbursement for Closing Costs. ................................................................ 9 H. Plaintiff Received All “Bridged Service” Pursuant to Schlumberger Policies. ................................................................................ 11 III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................... 12 IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 20 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 26 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 124 S. Ct. 2488 (2004) ................................................................................................. 12 Bullock v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 259 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 14 Charter Canyon Treatment Ctr. v. Pool Co., 153 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................... 15 Chiles v. Ceridian Corp., 95 F.3d 1505 (10th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................... 17 Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) ..................................................................................................... 17 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) ..................................................................................................... 15 Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 785 F.3d 395 (10th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................... 17 Jones v. Kodak Medical Assistance Plan, 169 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 15, 16 Karls v. Texaco, Inc., 139 Fed. Appx. 29 (10th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 14 Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Sav. & Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009) ............................................................................................... 16, 17 McDonald v. Household Int’l, Inc., 425 F.3d 424 (7th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 14 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) ..................................................................................................... 13 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 26 iv Molasky v. Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co., 149 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................... 14 Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987) ....................................................................................................... 14 Sandoval v. Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co., 967 F.2d 377 (10th Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................... 16 Shaw v. Delta Airlines, 463 U.S. 85 (1983) ....................................................................................................... 13 Spencer v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 205 Fed. Appx. 652 (10th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 14 Turner v. Retirement Plan of Marathon Oil Co., 659 F. Supp. 534 (N.D. Ohio 1987), aff’d., 845 F.2d 325 (6th Cir. 1988) .................. 14 State Cases Lapkin v. Garland Bloodworth, Inc., 23 P.3d 958 (Okla. 2000) ............................................................................................. 19 Lincoln Farm, L.L.C. v. Oppliger, 315 P.3d 971 (Okla. 2013) ........................................................................................... 17 Federal Statutes 29 U.S.C. ........................................................................................................................... 15 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) of ERISA .................................................................................... 12, 13 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3) ........................................................................................................... 12 29 U.S.C. § 1003 ............................................................................................................... 12 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1) ...................................................................................................... 16 29 U.S.C. § 1102(b)(4) ...................................................................................................... 16 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D) ................................................................................................. 17 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) ........................................................................................... 14, 15 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) ........................................................................................................... 13 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 26 v ERISA ......................................................................................................................... passim ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) ....................................................................................................... 14 ERISA § 514(a) ................................................................................................................. 13 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 5 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No.: CIV-15-910-M § Oklahoma County District Court § Case No. CJ-2015-3828 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY § CORPORATION, § § Defendant. § DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant, Schlumberger Technology Corporation (“Schlumberger”) moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Johnny Ray Weir, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) claims, Defendant shows the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a former employee of Schlumberger who worked for the Company for a number of years, resigned to work for a different company, returned to Schlumberger, and was most recently laid off as a result of the downturn in the oilfield services business. He, and the many other employees who were laid off, received severance agreements with amounts determined in accordance with Schlumberger’s ERISA Severance Plan. He was not happy with the amount and filed suit alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. He claims that even though severance was never discussed or even contemplated when he returned to Schlumberger the second time, he now assumes his Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 6 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 2 “weeks per years of service” calculation would be based on both his first tenure and his second tenure. The Severance Plan makes clear that there is no bridging of service and he only gets credit for his last period of employment. Plaintiff also claims that he should be paid a “bonus” for selling his house in Midland, Texas, within 90 days and his closing costs on his home in Moore, Oklahoma. Schlumberger’s relocation policy provides a number of expense reimbursements, but no such bonus or closing costs. His offer letter also lists the relocation benefits available, but does not include the bonus or relocation costs. Plaintiff claims that despite there being no mention of them in either verbal discussions or in writing, he should be paid these amounts. As set forth below, Plaintiff’s claims for severance are preempted by ERISA. But even if they were not, he is claiming breach of contract terms which were never discussed and never became part of any written agreement. There are writings regarding severance and relocation benefits and they clearly state that Plaintiff is not entitled to the money he is claiming. Plaintiff just claims he never read them. His claim is akin to someone signing a detailed real estate contract to buy a house, closing the deal, moving in, and then a year later claiming he should also have received the seller’s car, boat, and IRA because, well, those would have been nice to have too after he moved in. Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 7 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 3 II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED, MATERIAL FACTS A. Plaintiff’s First Tenure at Schlumberger. 1. Plaintiff worked for Schlumberger in Shreveport Louisiana. (Pl. Depo. p. 11). 2. Plaintiff resigned from Schlumberger in July of 2012 to accept a job with another company called “Borets” in Midland, Texas, because Borets offered him more money. (Pl. Depo. p. 8; Leon Decl.). 3. At the time of his resignation, he was a participant in Schlumberger’s retiree medical plan. He was paid all of benefits he was entitled to receive under this plan. (Pl. Depo. pp. 44-45; Leon Decl.) B. Plaintiff’s Return to Schlumberger. 4. After working for Borets in Midland for approximately 16 months, Plaintiff received a call from his former manager, Rabe Alramini, offering him his old job back at Schlumberger. Plaintiff asked him to send a job offer. There were no details discussed. (Pl. Depo. pp. 26-28). 5. Plaintiff then received a call from Mr. Alramini’s manager, Daniel Tesfamicael, offering him the same position and pay he had when he left Schlumberger – $75,000 salary plus 10% bonus potential. (Pl. Depo. pp. 28-29). Plaintiff declined the offer. (Pl. Depo. p. 29). 6. Plaintiff next received a written job offer with a $90,000 salary and a higher “grade level” for benefit purposes – Grade 11. (Pl. Depo. p. 31; Exs. 1, 2). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 8 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 4 7. Plaintiff did not ask for any changes to the offer letter because “everything he asked for was in there.” (Pl. Depo. pp. 39-40). He signed the letter, accepting the terms. (Pl. Depo. p. 39). 8. On the last page of the offer entitled “Employment Conditions,” Plaintiff was required to sign the offer acknowledging his acceptance of the terms. His signature is dated December 11, 2013. Just above his signature there is a certification that he must agree to the terms of the offer. It states: “I understand that no one at the company is authorized to make oral commitments regarding employment, either now or in the future.” (Pl. Depo. Ex. 2; Leon Decl.). 9. Plaintiff returned to work at Schlumberger in Oklahoma City in December of 2013. (Pl. Depo. p. 12). 10. Plaintiff admits that he was paid everything promised in the offer letter. (Pl. Depo. pp. 40-41). C. Plaintiff Asked For and Received His Retiree Medical Back. 11. Plaintiff had a concern about what was going to happen with his retiree medical benefit at Schlumberger if he returned, because when he resigned in 2012, he was paid the money in the account. (Pl. Depo. pp. 31-32). 12. Plaintiff testified that the “whole goal” of him coming back was to be able to retire under the “75 point rule” which is a combination of age plus years of service. (Pl. Depo. p. 33). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 9 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 5 13. Two days after Plaintiff signed the Schlumberger offer letter, he sent an email to Schlumberger stating: “I need something in writing that I will get my retirement medical back.” (Pl. Depo. p. 50; Ex.3). 14. The email was forwarded to Manuel Humberto Larios Leon in Human Resources who promptly responded to him stating: “To be able to get the medical retirement program, you would have to pay back all the contributions that were refunded to you when you left Schlumberger.” (Pl. Depo. pp. 50-51; Ex. 4; Leon Decl.). 15. There were other email exchanges between the time Plaintiff signed the offer letter and returned to work, but none of them mentioned severance. (Pl. Depo. pp. 52-53). 16. Plaintiff admits that when he returned to Schlumberger, his retiree medical was reinstated and he is not making any claim in this case for any money under that plan. (Pl. Depo. pp. 35-36). 17. Plaintiff “got back” his retiree medical and has no complaints about this issue. (Pl. Depo. p. 47). D. Plaintiff Turned Down a Counteroffer from Borets. 18. When Plaintiff was resigning from Borets, his manager there was trying to get him to stay and told him Schlumberger normally does not give returning employees their “retiree medical” back. (Pl. Depo. p. 47). 19. There was no mention of Schlumberger’s severance plan. (Pl. Depo. p. 47). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 10 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 6 20. Borets offered Plaintiff $95,000 salary and a $15,000 bonus to stay. (Pl. Depo. p. 48). 21. Plaintiff turned down the offer because he wanted to go back to Schlumberger to “get his retirement.” (Pl. Depo. p. 48). 22. Plaintiff worked out his two-week notice at Borets and did not get anything in writing from Schlumberger addressing severance at Schlumberger. (Pl. Depo. p. 53). 23. There were no email exchanges with Borets when Borets was trying to get him to stay which mention severance benefits at Schlumberger. (Pl. Depo. p. 54). 24. Although Plaintiff claims as damages in this case the difference between the $95,000 Borets offer and the $90,000 Schlumberger offer, plus the $15,000 bonus he walked away from at Borets, he admits that no one at Schlumberger made any promises to pay this money. (Pl. Depo. pp. 79-82). E. Plaintiff Layoff and Dispute Over Severance. 25. With respect to the issue of severance and bridging of service, Plaintiff admits that it was not discussed or even contemplated during the negotiations regarding him coming back to Schlumberger in December of 2013. (Pl. Depo. p. 45). 26. The reason severance was not discussed was because business was still good and nobody knew there was going to be a downturn. (Pl. Depo. p. 45). 27. The first time the issue of the severance benefit was mentioned was when Plaintiff was sitting in as a witness on a subordinate’s layoff meeting approximately three weeks before Plaintiff was laid off. (Pl. Depo. pp. 54-55). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 11 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 7 28. Plaintiff learned that the employee at issue was receiving two weeks per year of service. (Pl. Depo. p. 55). 29. Plaintiff did not inquire about his own severance benefit or bridging of service during this meeting. (Pl. Depo. p. 55). 30. Plaintiff was laid off from his job at Schlumberger at the end of March, 2015. (Pl. Depo. p. 5). 31. Pursuant to the terms of the Severance Plan, Plaintiff was provided with a Waiver and Release and an acknowledgement form, confirming that he received the Waiver and Release. (Leon Decl.; Exs. A-4, A-5). 32. The first time the issue of how much severance Plaintiff would get was raised when he was notified he was being laid off. (Pl. Depo. p. 56). 33. The severance amount of $4,313.00 in the Waiver and Release was calculated based on his continuous service after coming back to Schlumberger in December of 2013. (Leon Decl.). 34. Plaintiff signed the acknowledgement, but did not sign the Waiver and Release, so he was not paid the severance. (Leon Decl.). 35. Plaintiff claims he should receive 32 weeks of severance, despite the Severance Plan’s maximum of 26 weeks and the express prohibition against bridging service. (Pl. Depo. p. 73; Leon Decl. Exs. A-3, A-6). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 12 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 8 F. The Severance Plan Clearly Says Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Bridged Service and Has a Limit of 26 Weeks. 36. Section 4 of the Severance Plan states that the amount of benefits “shall be based solely on the Employee’s last period of continuous employment” with Schlumberger. It also states that “No prior period(s) of employment shall be taken into account in determining the Employee’s eligibility for, or the amount of, severance benefits hereunder.” (Leon Decl.; Ex. A-3). 37. The Severance Plan also states that the maximum amount of severance is 26 weeks. (Leon Decl.; Ex. A-6). 38. Schlumberger’s benefits plans were available to Plaintiff online at Schlumberger. (Pl. Depo. p. 35; Leon Decl.). 39. His December 2013 offer letter advises him to consult the Company’s policies for more information on employment policies and benefits. (Leon Decl.). 40. The only policy he looked at was the retiree medical plan because he wanted to know when he could retire. (Pl. Depo. p. 37). 41. Plaintiff never went online and looked at the Severance Plan. (Pl. Depo. p. 37). 42. The basis for Plaintiff claiming more than the maximum is that since he never looked at the Plan, he should not be subject to a maximum. (Pl. Depo. p. 73). 43. He admits that nobody at Schlumberger ever told him there was no maximum. (Pl. Depo. p. 74). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 13 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 9 G. The Relocation Policy Does Not Include the Bonus or Reimbursement for Closing Costs. 44. Plaintiff made a $40,000 profit on the sale of his house in Midland, Texas, but is claiming that Schlumberger should pay him an additional 6% of the sale price as a bonus for selling it so quickly. (Pl. Depo. p. 9). 45. Plaintiff also claims he should be paid his closing costs on the sale of his home in Moore, Oklahoma, after he was laid off from Schlumberger. (Pl. Depo. pp. 42- 43). 46. He admits that there is no mention in the offer letter of Schlumberger paying a bonus for the sale of the Midland home or closing costs for the sale of the Moore home. (Pl. Depo. pp. 42-43). 47. The offer letter states: “Your relocation benefits are defined in the applicable relocation policy, NAM New Hire or Rehire G11 and below.” (Pl. Depo. p. 42; Ex 1). 48. The offer letter also has an attachment containing a summary of relocation benefits. (Pl. Depo. Ex. 1; Leon Decl.) 49. Plaintiff’s claim is based solely on what he overheard from employees who were Grade 12 or above discussing what they received in relocation benefits in 2011 or 2012, before Plaintiff left Schlumberger the first time. (Pl. Depo. p. 66). These discussions were not in connection with his returning to work in 2013. (Pl. Depo. p. 68). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 14 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 10 50. Before receiving the offer letter, Plaintiff claims he asked Mr. Alramini if “Grade 11 means that I’ll get the full relocation and whatnot” and that Mr. Alramini responded “Yes.” (Pl. Depo. p. 69). 51. He admits that following this conversation, he received the offer letter which does list extensive relocation benefits, but makes no mention of a 6 percent bonus or closing costs. (Pl. Depo. pp. 69-70). 52. Although the offer letter mentions the grade G-11 Relocation Policy, he never asked to see it before signing the letter, nor did he look at it once he went back to work at Schlumberger. (Pl. Depo. p. 70). 53. Plaintiff has a copy of the policy, but over two years later, when his deposition was taken in July of 2016, he has still not looked at the policy to see if it mentions a bonus or closing costs. (Pl. Depo. pp. 71-72). 54. Plaintiff has never even compared the relocation benefits he actually received to the offer letter which lists what he was entitled to receive. (Pl. Depo. pp. 72- 73). 55. Plaintiff has also made a demand for $16,964.24 on an alleged loss when he sold his home in Moore, Oklahoma, but cannot point to any email, offer letter, or relocation policy saying that Schlumberger would pay for this loss. (Pl. Depo. pp. 83- 84). 56. Neither the offer letter, the summary of relocation benefits attached to the offer letter, the relocation policy as it existed in December 2013, nor the relocation policy Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 15 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 11 as it existed at the time of Mr. Weir’s discharge, have any mention of the bonus or reimbursement for closing costs. That is because these benefits are not available to a grade G-11 employee. (Leon Decl.). 57. The offer made to Plaintiff to return to Schlumberger was for a grade G-11. There was no discussion of, nor any offer of a bonus for the sale of his home or to reimburse him for closing costs or an alleged loss from the sale of his Moore, Oklahoma, home. (Leon Decl.). 58. Plaintiff received all relocation benefits he was entitled to receive under the grade G-11 Relocation Policy at Schlumberger. (Leon Decl.). H. Plaintiff Received All “Bridged Service” Pursuant to Schlumberger Policies. 59. The “Offer Details” attached to the offer letter states that the “Rehire Date” was set for December 15, 2013. It also notes that “This will be the date used for purposes of calculating your Schlumberger bridged seniority.” (Pl. Depo. Ex. 2). 60. As noted in the “Vacation” section of the Offer Details document, the amount of vacation pay available is based on years of service. (Pl. Depo. Ex. 2). 61. Plaintiff’s years of service was “bridged” for purposes of vacation – meaning he received credit for time worked prior to his resignation. (Leon Decl.). 62. Neither the offer letter, nor the Offer Details, makes any mention of bridging service for purposes of severance because that was never discussed. (Leon Decl.). To the contrary the Severance Plan specifically prohibits bridging of service. (Leon Decl.; Ex. A-3). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 16 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 12 III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims Regarding Severance Must Be Dismissed Because They Are Preempted by ERISA. 1. Because the Severance Plan underlying Plaintiff’s state law claims was established to provide benefits to employees, it is governed by ERISA. Schlumberger timely removed Plaintiff’s Petition on August 24, 2015, on the grounds that, inter alia, Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claim is based upon Defendant’s Severance Plan (“the Plan”),1 which is an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan.2 It is well-established that ERISA provides exclusive regulation of employee benefit plans.3 Specifically, ERISA applies to any “employee benefit plan” if the plan is established or maintained by an employer or employee organization engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce.4 An “employee benefit plan” is defined as an employee welfare benefit plan or an employee pension benefit plan.5 A plan is a welfare benefit plan if it is “established or is maintained for the 1 Declaration of Manuel Humberto Larios Leon, ¶ 11, Ex. A-3. 2 Doc. 1, p. 2. In his Motion to Remand, Plaintiff conceded that “the plan is an employee welfare plan as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) of ERISA” but resisted federal question jurisdiction on the grounds that he was also seeking relief under state law for retaliation. [Doc. 9, p. 5.] The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim on October 20, 2015, so this argument is now moot to the extent it was not already. [Doc. 14.] After the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Plaintiff never amended the Complaint to add an ERISA claim. 3 See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 124 S. Ct. 2488, 2495 (2004). 4 29 U.S.C. § 1003. 5 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 17 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 13 purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries ... benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment.”6 As noted above, the basis of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is that Defendant wrongfully denied him severance payments under the Plan. Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Petition expressly refers to “severance documentation,” and Plaintiff’s calculation of damages is based on the formula for severance benefits described in the Plan.7 It is plain from the face of the Plan itself that it provides severance benefits to eligible employees of Defendant.8 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims arise under an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan. 2. Because Plaintiff’s only claims for severance are preempted by ERISA, they are subject to dismissal. ERISA Section 514(a), which gives rise to “ordinary” or “conflict” preemption, provides that ERISA shall “supersede any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.”9 Thus, if Plaintiff’s state law claims “relate to” an employee benefit plan, they are preempted by ERISA. Giving the phrase “relates to” its “broadest common-sense meaning,” the Supreme Court has held that a state law claim “relates to” a Plan ‘if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.’”10 6 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) (references to other types of employer-provided benefits qualifying as ERISA plans omitted) (emphasis added). 7 Petition, Doc. 1-3. 8 Leon Dec., Ex. A-3 (“The purpose of the Plan is to provide severance benefits for eligible employees of the Employers (as defined herein) who are involuntarily terminated[.]”) 9 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (emphasis added). 10 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739 (1985) (quoting Shaw v. Delta Airlines, 463 U.S. 85, 97 (1983)). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 18 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 14 At the foundation of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is the allegation that he was wrongfully denied benefits under the terms of an ERISA-governed welfare benefit plan: “Plaintiff believes he is owned [sic] for the promised payment, severance for his entire length of service along with damages for loss of opportunity and attorney fees.”11 As such, Plaintiff is stating a claim precisely encompassed by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan.”12 Indeed, a multitude of courts, including the United States Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, uniformly have held that ERISA preempts state law causes of action for breach of contract because they “relate to” an ERISA plan.13 Likewise, claims of misrepresentations about benefits and plan terms have a sufficient connection with a plan to be preempted.14 In short, Plaintiff’s sole claim and potential remedy is pursuant to a civil action under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and his preempted state law breach of contract claim should be dismissed. 11 Petition, Doc. 1-3. 12 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). 13 See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987) (state common law causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith relate to an employee benefit plan and therefore fall under ERISA’s preemption provision); Karls v. Texaco, Inc., 139 Fed. Appx. 29, 32 (10th Cir. 2005) (“breach of contract claims are preempted by ERISA if the factual basis of the cause of action involves an employee benefit plan”); Bullock v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 259 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2001) (ERISA preempts breach of contract claims); Turner v. Retirement Plan of Marathon Oil Co., 659 F. Supp. 534 (N.D. Ohio 1987), aff’d., 845 F.2d 325 (6th Cir. 1988) (state law claims of estoppel, detrimental reliance, negligence, and breach of contact are preempted by ERISA); Molasky v. Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co., 149 F.3d 881, 884 (8th Cir. 1998) (claim for breach of contract is preempted by ERISA). 14 Spencer v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 205 Fed. Appx. 652, 654 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court’s decision that ERISA preempts state breach-of-contract claims based on misrepresentation); McDonald v. Household Int'l, Inc., 425 F.3d 424, 429-430 (7th Cir. 2005) (Plaintiff alleging he did not receive promised coverage “cannot recover consequential damages in an ERISA action.”). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 19 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 15 B. Even if the Court Converted Plaintiff’s State Law Claims to ERISA Claims Sua Sponte, the Court Owes Deference to Defendant’s Decision, and Defendant Correctly Interpreted the Plain Terms of the Plan. 1. Defendant’s decision not to pay severance benefits based Plaintiff’s prior period of employment is entitled to an ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard of review. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch,15 the United State Supreme Court held that “[c]onsistent with established principles of trust law, we hold that a denial of benefits under [29 U.S.C.] § 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or construe the terms of the plan.” A court “applies an ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard to a plan administrator’s actions if the plan grants the administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the plan’s terms.”16 In the instant case, such discretionary authority is granted. The relevant plan document states: The Plan Administrator is authorized to construe and interpret the Plan and to determine all questions of eligibility for Plan benefits. The Plan Administrator’s decision shall be final and binding.17 In Jones v. Kodak Medical Assistance Plan, the plan contained language granting the plan administrator “full discretionary authority in all matters relating to the discharge of his responsibilities . . . including, without limitation, his construction of the terms of the Plan and his determination of eligibility for Coverage and Benefits.”18 This language, 15 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). 16 Charter Canyon Treatment Ctr. v. Pool Co., 153 F.3d 1132, 1135 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Firestone). 17 Leon Decl. Ex. A-3, SPD, p. 4. 18 169 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir. 1999). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 20 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 16 the Tenth Circuit found, was sufficient to justify the district court’s review under an arbitrary and capricious standard.19 The language in the plan document quoted above is clearer in its grant of discretionary authority than the language quoted in Jones. Therefore, because the Plan document “gave the administrator this discretion, the district court [should] review [Defendant’s] actions under an arbitrary and capricious standard.”20 2. Defendant is bound by the terms of the plan and interpreted them correctly under any standard of review. The plain language of the Plan and the SPD make it abundantly clear that Plaintiff was not eligible for severance benefits based on his first fifteen (15) years of employment because he resigned his employment and was not “involuntarily terminated.”21 Plaintiff insists that his right to recovery is triggered by an extrinsic agreement that overrides the Plan; however, it is well established that a claim for benefits under ERISA “stands or falls by ‘the terms of the plan[.]’”22 ERISA requires “[e]very employee benefit plan [to] be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument,”23 . . . “specify[ing] the basis on which payments are made to and from the plan.”24 Thus, the plan administrator is statutorily required to act “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provisions of [Title I] and [Title IV] of 19 Id. at 1291. 20 Sandoval v. Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co., 967 F.2d 377, 280 (10th Cir. 1992). 21 Both the Plan and the SPD state that eligible employees must have been involuntarily terminated and will not be paid if they voluntarily resign. Leon Decl., Ex A. Plaintiff admits that he resigned after 15 years of employment with Defendant on July 5, 2012. Petition, ¶ 14, Doc. 7-3. 22 Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Sav. & Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 300 (2009). 23 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1). 24 29 U.S.C. § 1102(b)(4). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 21 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 17 [ERISA].”25 As the Supreme Court noted in Kennedy, “ERISA provides no exemption from this duty when it comes time to pay benefits.26 Specifically, “[a] plaintiff cannot prove his employer promised vested benefits unless he identifies ‘clear and express language’ in the plan making such a promise.”27 In the instant case, Plaintiff cannot identify any language in the Plan or SPD that even obliquely implicates the possibility of vesting agreements. Indeed, the SPD states, “No prior period(s) of employment shall be taken into account in determining the Employee’s eligibility for . . . severance benefits hereunder.”28 Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant interpreted the Plan in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, and therefore, even if the Court converted Plaintiff’s preempted state law claim to an ERISA claim, that claim must be dismissed as a matter of law. C. In the Alternative, There was no Breach of any Contract. Even if Plaintiff’s claims for severance were not preempted by ERISA, there was no breach of contract. In order to assert a breach of contract claim under Oklahoma law, Plaintiff must prove that there was a failure to perform a promise contained in a contract.29 Plaintiff admits that there was no agreement prior to his return in December of 2013 regarding severance. Severance was not discussed at all and for good reason – business was good and no one predicted the dramatic downturn caused by falling oil 25 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D). 26 Kennedy, 555 U.S. at 300; see also Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 148 (2001) (a straightforward rule of hewing to the directives of the plan documents lets employers “establish a uniform administrative scheme, [with] a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.”) 27 Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 785 F.3d 395, 403 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chiles v. Ceridian Corp., 95 F.3d 1505, 1511 (10th Cir. 1996)). 28 Leon Decl., Ex. A, Plan, Section 4. 29 Lincoln Farm, L.L.C., 315 P. 3d 971, 979 (Okla. 2013). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 22 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 18 prices. The first time Plaintiff heard anything about severance was when he was a witness in a layoff meeting of a subordinate. The only contract terms that exist regarding severance are contained in the Severance Plan, which clearly states that the amount of benefits “shall be based solely on the Employee’s last period of continuous employment” with Schlumberger. It also states that “No prior period(s) of employment shall be taken into account in determining the Employee’s eligibility for, or the amount of, severance benefits hereunder.” Schlumberger complied with these contract terms and offered Plaintiff the severance money called for in the Plan, but Plaintiff would not sign the Waiver and Release called for in the Plan. The same holds true for the relocation benefit. The only agreement regarding relocation benefits is what is stated in the offer letter. The offer letter states that Plaintiff will be a Grade G-11 employee, contains an attachment listing relocation benefits for a Grade G-11 employee, and refers to the Relocation Policy for a Grade G-11 employee. These documents spell out in detail all of the relocation benefits Plaintiff was entitled to receive and there was no other discussion or agreement regarding the “extras” Plaintiff is now asking for. There is no mention of a bonus for the sale of his Midland home, closing costs for his Moore home, or reimbursement for the loss of the sale on his Moore home. He was paid all of the relocation benefits outlined in these documents and there was no agreement to pay him anything more. Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 23 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 19 D. The Claim For Unjust Enrichment is Frivolous The claim for unjust enrichment on page 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint is incomprehensible. It mentions the alleged contract and Schlumberger accepting Plaintiff’s services, and concludes with a request for judgment against Calmena Energy Services and Calmena Drilling Services, who have no connection to this case. A claim of unjust enrichment requires proof that Schlumberger was paid money it was not entitled to receive. In Lapkin v. Garland Bloodworth, Inc.30 attorneys representing a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case were paid $1,077,500 in contingency fees following a settlement. The settlement fell through and the plaintiff hired another firm. The first firm would not give back the money. The court awarded the plaintiff $1,077,500 under an unjust enrichment theory. The foundation of the theory was a contingent fee agreement providing that the attorneys would be paid their contingency fee out of the “recovery” from the lawsuit. But since the settlement fell through, there was no “recovery.” The court found that it would be unjust to allow the attorneys to keep the money. Plaintiff has not alleged that he paid Schlumberger any money that would give rise to an unjust enrichment claim. Although he mentions the value of his services, he received everything he was promised in the offer letter. His claim is essentially that in hindsight, had he known the downturn was coming, he would have asked about severance when he was returning to Schlumberger. But even if he had asked and told something 30 23 P.3d 958 (Okla. 2000). Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 24 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 20 inconsistent with the Severance Plan, there was still no money paid to Schlumberger which it could be ordered to return to Plaintiff under an unjust enrichment theory. IV. CONCLUSION As set forth in the offer letter and benefits plans, the compensation and benefits Plaintiff was entitled to receive are well-documented. With respect to the severance plan, he cannot avoid the plain language of the plan and avoid the case law under ERISA by retitling his claim as a breach of contract or unjust enrichment claim. With respect to relocation benefits, the contract consists of two documents – his offer letter which details all of his relocation benefits, and the formal policy for Grade G- 11 employees. Since the offer letter specifically directs him to look at the policy for more details, and Plaintiff never took the time to look at the policy, he cannot now claim his not knowing what it said is a basis for a contract claim. Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 25 of 26 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Page 21 Dated: August 1, 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/ William L. Davis James R. Waldo, Esq., OBA #9278 James R. Waldo, P.L.L.C. 512 N.W. 12th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 PH: (405) 235-5516 FX: (405) 235-0148 jwaldo@jrwaldo.com and William L. Davis, Esq. Texas Bar No. 05563800 JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 500 N. Akard, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 PH: (214) 520-2400 FX: (214) 520-2008 davisw@jacksonlewis.com ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 1, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing. Based on the records currently on file, the Clerk of Court will transmit a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants: Jacque Pearsall, Esq. OBA #18317 jacquepearsall@gmail.com /s/ William L. Davis William L. Davis, Esq. 4851-5721-1445, v. 1 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18 Filed 08/01/16 Page 26 of 26 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Page 1 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR., Plaintiff, Case No. CIV-15-910-M vs. Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CJ-2015-3828 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant. DEPOSITION OF JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT ON JULY 22, 2016, BEGINNING AT 10:37 A.M. IN OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA APPEARANCES: On behalf of the PLAINTIFF Jacque Pearsall Dunn & Pearsall 2548 Northwest Expressway, Suite 102 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 (405) 609-6601 jacquepearsall@gmail.com On behalf of the DEFENDANT William L. Davis JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 500 North Akard, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 74201 (214) 520-2400 davisw@jacksonlewis.com ALSO PRESENT: Julian Chin REPORTED BY: Janna Pirtle, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 46 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE Page 96 I, JANNA PIRTLE, Certified Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that the witness was by me first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, taken in shorthand and thereafter transcribed; that the same was taken pursuant to stipulations hereinbefore set out; and that I am not an attorney for nor relative of any of said parties or otherwise interested in the event of said action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 26th day of July, 2016. Janna Pirtle, CSR, RPR CSR No: 1815 HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 5 Moore, Oklahoma. Can't remember the house number. Q How long did you live there? A About a year and a half. Q And that was while you were working at Schlumberger? A Correct. Q And did you sell that house? A Yes. Q When did you sell it? A I'm trying to think. I think it think we sold it in August. Q August of '15? A Yeah. Q After you left Schlumberger? A Right. Q Okay. A I'm not 100 percent sure that's correct, but I put it on the market, like, in July and I think it sold, like, in August. I might be mistaken on the dates, but it wasn't very long after. Q And you were let go from Schlumberger at the end of March 2015? A Yes, sir. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 8 there. There was one on 70th Street and one on Valley View Drive. Q In Hallsville? A No, in Shreveport. Q Shreveport. So you were commuting from Hallsville to Shreveport? A Yes, sir. Q And then you resigned from Schlumberger to go to Borets? A Yes, sir. Q Why did you do that? A I was presented with a -- with an offer from Borets. Q And how much was that offer? A 87 plus a bonus, quarterly bonus. Q That was in 2012? A Yes, sir. Q But that required you to move to Midland; right? A Yes, sir. Q Did they pay for your move or -- A Yes, sir. Q -- offer you anything for that? And did you buy a house in Midland? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 9 A Yes, sir. Q And when you sold that house to move to Moore, did you make money or lose money? A I actually made money on that house. Q How much did you make? A About $40,000. Q That was during the boom? A Uh-huh, yes, sir. Q Make sure you say "yes" or "no." The court reporter -- A I'm trying to. Q -- she has a little trouble distinguishing that so... So you take the job at Borets and resign from Schlumberger and buy a house in Midland and you worked for Borets for about a year? A I started in July and about a -- I would say about a year and five months, maybe six months. Q And then you sell the house in Midland and make about $40,000 profit; right? A Yes. I had to pay for the siding on the house, but other than that -- and that was, like, 20,000. Q After paying for the siding? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 5 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 11 Q Have any certificates, licenses? A No, sir. Q Have you ever been a party to a lawsuit before? A No, sir. Q And when you left Schlumberger the first time, who was your immediate supervisor? A Rabe Alramini. Q And who did he report to? A Daniel Tesfamicael. Q And where did Rabe work? A In Shreveport. Q And what about Daniel? A Shreveport, but they moved the location from Shreveport to Oklahoma City. Q While you were at Borets? A No. Q Your last job at Schlumberger before you left in 2012 was in Shreveport; right? A Correct. Q Then when you came back, it was in Oklahoma City? A Correct. Yes, sir. Q So did they move the job while you were gone? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 6 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 12 A No. Q What happened? A I was, I guess, transferred, basically, from Midland, Texas, to Oklahoma City. The first couple of months I was -- they put me in housing and whatnot to help move the facility from Shreveport to Oklahoma City. Q Okay. So you came back to Schlumberger in December of 2013; right? A Yes, sir. Q And you're saying you were actually working in Midland at that time? A Can you rephrase that? I lost what you were saying. Q Well, where -- when you came back to Schlumberger in December of 2013, where was your job? A My job was to be in Oklahoma City, but my manager asked me to assist in the moving of the facility. Q Okay. So when you were hired back, it was in the process of moving from Shreveport to Oklahoma City? A Correct. Q And you knew that was going to happen; HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 7 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 26 which. And prior to that, I worked for Wood Group. Q Wood Group? A Yes, sir. Q What kind of company is that? A It's a submergible pump company. Q In the oil and gas business? A Yes. Q And how long were you at Wood Group? A About nine years. Q And where did you work before that? A Barrett Trailers. Q What do they do? A They build cattle and feed trailers. Q All right. Is that in Moore? A It used to be out off of Highway 62, but I think they've moved to Purcell. Q Okay. So you were working at Borets in Midland. How did it come about that you came back to Schlumberger? A A phone call. Q From who? A Rabe Alramini. Q Had you kept in contact with him after HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 8 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 27 you resigned from Boret -- from Schlumberger the first time? A We probably had a couple of conversations but... Q But you had been at Borets in Midland for a little over a year and he called you? A Yes, sir. Q And what did he say? A He wanted me to come back to Schlumberger. Q Okay. And what did you say? A I asked him to send me a job offer. Q So the only thing that was said in this first conversation is Rabe asked you to come back to Schlumberger and you said, "Send me a job offer"? A Pretty much. Q No other details discussed? A Not at that point. Q And at the time of this first call, had you put your house in Midland on the market? A No, sir. Q And who did you use in Midland to list that house? A I can't remember what the name of the HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 9 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 28 company is. Q And -- A I'm sure I have it on my computer somewhere. Q Okay. So Rabe calls you, asks you to come back to Schlumberger. The only thing you remember about the conversation is he asked you to come back and you said, "Send me an offer"; right? A Yeah. Q What was the next communication with someone from Schlumberger? A The next communication happened, like, a week or so later and it was from Daniel Tesfamicael. Q Phone call? Or how did A It was a phone call. Q He called you? A Yes, sir. Q And he was Rabe's boss? A Correct. Q What did he say to you in that conversation? A He offered me a position back at Schlumberger with everything that I had before I HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 10 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 29 left. Q Okay. Well, tell me specifically what he said. A Well, I mean, this was a conversation two or three years ago. Q I need to know what you remember him saying, specifically. A I remember him saying that I -- that he was offering me the position to come back to Schlumberger making the 75,000 a year with a 10 percent PIP and a -- a 10 percent PIP. It's hard to recall that far, yeah. Q What did you say? A I politely said, "Thanks, but no thanks." Q And why is that? A Because I was making more money where I was at. Q You were making 87 at Borets at the time? A Correct. Q When you left Schlumberger the first time, what was your grade level? A Ten. Q Okay. And for the judge or jury, what HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 11 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 31 A Rabe sent me the job offer. Q The written job offer? A The written job offer. Q And what did that job offer contain? A It contained the -- hold it. That's -- that's not correct. That's my mistake. I got a phone call from Rabe and then we talked about me being able to retain my years of service at a grade level 11 and 90,000, and then everything -- then when I seen the job offer with the salary and everything on it, I assumed that it was -- I was good to go. Q Okay. So the call back, after you turned down the 75,000 Grade 10 job, was from Rabe and he offered a Grade 11 position at $90,000 a year; right? A Yes, sir. Q That's what ended up in the offer letter? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. And you were concerned about your years of service because when you resigned from Schlumberger in 2012, you took retiree medical; right? A Yeah, I had retiree medical prior to HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 12 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. that. Page 32 Q Okay. Had you received some sort of payout, or can you just explain what you did when you resigned in 2012 with respect to retiree medical? A When I resigned in 2012, I was sent a check to pay for what I had paid into the retiree medical plan. Q And about how much was that? A I don't recall. Q And you cashed the check or deposited it? A Yeah. Q And did you actually use it for any medical expenses, or was it just money that you had paid in that they were giving you back? A It was money that I paid in and they gave me -- gave it back. Q And you understood in coming back, to get reinstated in that plan, when you came back to Schlumberger, you had to pay that money back in? A Yes. Q And why did you want to be back in the retiree medical plan when you came back? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 13 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 33 A Because the whole goal of me coming back to Schlumberger was for me to be able to retire with a 70 point -- 75-point rule. Q What does that mean? What do you get if you're able to retire? A That means I get my medical, dental, and all that with my pension and whatnot. Q And what is -- you said the 70-point rule? A 75. Q Okay. What is that? A Age, plus years of service. Q Okay. So at the time you had left Schlumberger the first time in 2012, how many points did you have? I mean, were you above the 75? A No. Q Okay. So when you left, you were 48? A I think that's right, and then I had 15 years in service. Q Okay. So you were only about 63 points at the time? A Uh-huh. Q So when you came back in 2013, you had same number of points and those were all HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 14 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 35 Q Okay. A Because it's a term of employment, I think, somehow. Q Right. The first time when you resigned, you requested the money? A No. Q Okay. They sent it to you both times? A Yes, sir. Q That's how the plan works? A That's -- to my knowledge, yes. Q So for retiree medical and your concerns about coming back and it being reinstated, was it in fact reinstated just as you had hoped? A I believe so. Q You're not making any claim that they shorted you on the money when they sent it back? A Oh, no, no, no. Q And did you ever actually go look at the retiree medical plan and read it to see what the terms were? A When I was working for Schlumberger the first time, I did in, like, 2011 or '12. It was on a Schlumberger Hub page, and it said if you have the -- if you have 75 points -- what I HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 15 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 36 remember reading is at 75 points with your years of service, and if you were -- at age 55, you could retire at 55 with full benefit. Q So given your years of service, had you still been employed at Schlumberger at age 55, you would have hit the magic number; right? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. And in this case, are you claiming that Schlumberger owes you any more money under the retiree medical plan? A No. Q But you said you could go online and look at the plan? A Yes, sir. It -- well, it was the -- I can't remember exactly what it's called. It was a Schlumberger web page. I think you had to be an employee to see that. Q Had to be employed and on a Schlumberger computer? A Yeah, I think so. Q Could you access it from your home? A No. Well, I don't know. I never tried. Q Was the plan available in paper copy? Do you know? A I don't know. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 16 of 46 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 37 Q Were there any other benefits plans available on that website? A I believe so. Q Did you look at any of the other plans? A No. I was looking to see how long I could -- how long I needed to work to be able to achieve the retirement package. Q And did the retirement package include anything other than medical? A I believe it included your pension, medical, and dental, and I believe it also had life insurance, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I mean, I read that five -- four or five years ago. And it may have changed by now, too. Q But you understood the plans could sometimes change; right? A Yeah. Q And did you ever go on that Schlumberger website and look at the severance plan? A No, sir. Q You knew in early 2015 things were starting to slow down; right? A Yes, sir. Q And were you concerned about your job? A I believe everybody was. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 17 of 46 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 39 THE WITNESS: Yeah. This looks like what I signed. MR. DAVIS: And we'll call that Exhibit Number 1 and the court reporter will mark it for us. (Exhibit 1 marked for identification) Q (By Mr. Davis) Okay. So Exhibit 1 is the offer letter that was sent to you by Schlumberger. Daniel Tesfamicael signed it. It's dated December 10, 2013; right? A Yes, sir. Q And you reviewed it and it looked acceptable; right? A Yes. Q And then you signed it on the last page of Exhibit 1 as your signature; correct? A Yes. Q And before you signed it, did you take it to an attorney or have anyone else look at it? A No, sir. Q And how was it sent to you? A By e-mail. Q And before you signed it, did you e-mail Schlumberger and ask for any changes to be made? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 18 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 40 A No, because our deal was made. I thought everything I asked for was in there. Q Okay. But in the -- on the first page of the offer letter, do you see any mention of severance or a severance pay or severance plan? A No, sir. Q And what it does say is that you would have a biweekly-based salary of $3,461.54 with a Grade 11; right? A Yes. Q And that was acceptable to you? A Yes, sir. Q And when you returned to Schlumberger, you were in fact paid that amount of money; right? A Yes, sir. Q And it says you'll be eligible to participate in a 10 -- 0 to 10 percent performance incentive program; right? A Yes, sir. Q And did you participate in that? A Yes, sir. Q Do you know how much you were paid under that plan? A 9 percent. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 19 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 41 Q So you don't have any complaints about what you were paid? A No, sir. I thought it was a fair review and whatnot. Q And then it says, "Please refer to the U.S. Employee Handbook, onboarding documents, and policies for more information on employee policies and benefits"; right? A Yeah. It says that. Q And did you go and look at any of those policies or the handbook to get more information about policies and benefits? A No, sir. They weren't available to me. Q But after you joined Schlumberger, did you go look at those? A No. I mean, why would I? I mean, I made a deal with Rabe and Daniel and I expected them to honor it. MR. DAVIS: Object as nonresponsive. Q (By Mr. Davis) This says the offer is effective December 15, 2013, but it's my understanding you didn't actually come back until -- what? -- end of December. A Yeah, the 30th. Q Okay. Well, after December 30 when HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 20 of 46 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 42 you're back at Schlumberger, have access to the online policies, between then and the time you left in March of 2015, did you ever go online and look at the severance plan or policy? A No. Q And this offer letter dated December 10, 2013, makes no mention of bridging of service, does it? A No, it doesn't. Q And then the next page is the relocation benefits. It lists in the boxes the types of benefits available and it also says, in the third paragraph on Page 1, "Your relocation benefits are defined in the applicable relocation policy, NAM New Hire or Rehire Gil and below," which you will be provided -- or "which will be provided to you by Cartus." Do you see that? A Uh-huh. Q Did you ever review that policy after you came back to Schlumberger? A No. Q And in this summary of relocation benefits in Exhibit 1, there's no mention of a bonus for selling your house in Midland within HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 21 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 43 90 days, is there? A No. I don't see that. Q And there's no mention of paying closing costs for the purchase of your Moore, Oklahoma, house; correct? A I don't see that either. Q Or there's no mention of paying closing costs for the purchase or sale of any house; right? A I don't see that on this document. Q And in your -- when you signed it on December 11, 2013, the page you signed says, "Employment conditions," and just before your signature, it says, "I understand that no one at the company is authorized to make any oral commitments regarding employment either now or in the future." Do you see that? A Yes, I see that. Q And you didn't mark that out or make changes to it before you signed it and sent it back, did you? A No, I didn't. (Exhibit 2 marked for identification) Q (By Mr. Davis) Okay. Now, Exhibit 2, HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 22 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 45 A Correct. Q No complaints about that? A No. And that's why I thought everything was right. Q But in this Offer Details, there's no mention at all of bridging service for purposes of severance; right? A Not -- I never even thought of severance at that time. Q Right. And you were coming back to Schlumberger at a time when business was still good, things looked good; nobody really knew there was going to be a big downturn; right? A Correct. Q Okay. So the notion of severance benefits wasn't on your mind at the time you came back in December of 2013; right? A No, sir. Q And there was no specific discussion, when you were thinking about coming back, with Rabe or Daniel about the severance issue, was there? A No. Q And when did you tender your resignation HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 23 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 47 Q M-u-1-1-i-e-r? A Yeah, my spelling is very bad. Q Who else did you tender your resignation to? A Well, she sent it to a guy named Keith Russell and he was the VP for U.S. Land. Q Do you know whether either of them are still at Borets? A I don't think Sharon is. I'm pretty sure that Keith Russell is. Keith Russell is why -- when Keith was talking to me, he goes, they don't -- "Schlumberger usually don't give people their retirement package back." He said, "You need to make sure that you get that back," and that's why I only asked about that one benefit. Q Right. And you asked about it and you did in fact get it back; correct? A Right. Q Okay. In your conversation with Keith Russell, he didn't make any mention of the severance plan, though; right? A No. Q So did -- and is it my understanding HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 24 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 48 Borets tried to keep you -- A Yes, sir. Q They made an offer? A Yes, sir. Q So you told them what Schlumberger's offer was and they made a counter offer? A Yes, sir. Q And how much was that offer? A It was for 95,000 a year with a $15,000 retaining bonus and they added a extra week of vacation time. I believe that's everything. Q And you turned that down? A I turned that down because I wanted to go back to Schlumberger so I could get my retirement. Q And did you immediately turn it down, or did you stay for a little while and then -- or did you just go ahead and turn it down? A I didn't immediately turn it down. I took it home and talked to my wife about it. Q Did she want to get back to -- or get out of Midland? A No. Q She liked it there? A She really liked it there. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 25 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 50 (Exhibit 3 marked for identification) Q (By Mr. Davis) Which is an e-mail you sent to Rabe December 13, 2013, at 1:38 p.m. saying, "I need something in writing that I will get my retirement medical back"; right? A Yes. Q No mention in there of severance or a severance plan; correct? A No. Q And Rabe responds two minutes later saying, "Johnny, please contact Humberto. He is on the cc and his phone number on the LOA we sent you." Do you see that? A Yes, sir. Q And who is Humberto? A He was the HR representative. Q And... A This looks like it's missing a part of a chain. Q Okay. Well, got some more, so we'll see if we can fill it in. (Exhibit 4 marked for identification) Q (By Mr. Davis) Okay. In e-mails, you have to start to the last page and work HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 26 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 51 backwards, so as Exhibit 4 -- so that, again, starts out as your e-mail to Rabe December 13, 2013, 1:38 p.m.: "I need something in writing that I will get my retirement medical back." He responds telling you, "Contact Humberto," and then you send Humberto an e-mail 1:49 p.m. on December 13, 2013, saying, "Humberto, can you send me something in writing stating that I will get my medical retirement back?" correct? A Yes. Q No mention of severance or a severance plan; right? A No. Q And then Humberto responds to you December 13, 2013, at 3:57 p.m. saying, "To be able to get the medical retirement program, you would have to pay back all the contributions that were refunded to you when you left Schlumberger"; right? A Correct. Q And you did that and you got your A Yes. Q -- medical retirement back? And the -- Humberto also says, "Your HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 27 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 52 seniority in SLB will be recalculated once we have the new starting date." Do you see that? A Yes. Q And there's no mention in Humberto's e-mail about severance or a severance plan; right? A No. Q And -- (Exhibit 5 marked for identification) Q (By Mr. Davis) -- Exhibit 5 looks like it starts out with the same original inquiry on Page 2. December 13, 1:38 p.m., you're asking about retirement medical. Same chain as in Exhibit 4, but this is your response to Humberto when he mentions paying back the money on retirement medical and your seniority being recalculated. You say, "Humberto, I think this is the paperwork you asked me for yesterday. Let me know if you need anything else." And that's your response on December 18, 2013, at 8:52 a.m.; right? A Yes. Q And in this e-mail back to Humberto, HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 28 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 53 there's no mention of severance or retiree medical or -- I'm sorry. In your e-mail back to Humberto on December 18, there's no mention of severance or a severance plan; right? A No. Q When was your last day at Borets? A I'm not 100 percent sure. I think it was December 23rd. Q So you resigned on the 12th and stayed about a week? A Was two almost two weeks. Q And -- A They asked me to work the two weeks' notice I gave them. I was trying to add up the days. Q Right. And during that two weeks, you didn't get anything in writing from Schlumberger specifically addressing the severance you might get if you left Schlumberger; right? A No. Q And none of these e-mails that we've looked at have any mention of the severance plan or severance benefits; correct? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 29 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 54 A Correct. Q And I think we've asked your lawyer for any e-mails you may have which, before you left Borets and came back to Schlumberger, made any mention of severance or how much money you might get in severance, and we didn't get any. Is that because there just are none? A That's correct. Q It looks to me like the first time the question came up about severance and how much you might get was after you were notified in March of 2015 that you were being laid off, and you were handed the release that just had a few weeks' severance in it; right? A That's not correct. Q Okay. Well, when, between the time you came back to Schlumberger and your being laid off, did you first raise the notion of how much severance you would get? A It was two to three weeks before I was let go, because I was in Shreveport, Louisiana, giving a severance package which -- with a HR lady -- I can't remember her name -- that was over the Shreveport area. I was letting one of those employees go, and I asked her at that time HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 30 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 55 how did the severance work. And she said an hourly employee gets one week for every year served; a salaried employee gets two weeks for every year served. Q Okay. So you were having to let go of somebody who worked for you? A Yes. Q Okay. And you hadn't yet been told that you were being let go -- A No. I had no clue. Q You were just asking how it works? A Yeah. Q Okay. A Yeah, just for curiosity Q Right. But you didn't ask her anything about your particular severance or A No. Q -- how much you would get? A No. Q So the issue of bridging of service, that didn't come up in that conversation? A No. Q So the first time it came up with respect to you and how much you would get was HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 31 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 56 after they handed you your severance agreement and you saw the amount and thought it wasn't enough? A Correct. Q Okay. And who A Since I got an e-mail from Schlumberger thanking me for 16 years of service, like, a couple of months prior. Q Sure. And what was that in connection with? An anniversary date or -- A Yeah, yeah. When they recalculated my deal, I think the HR department -- I'm not 100 percent sure which department does this, but they would send all the employees a e-mail saying congratulations on -- in my case, it was 16 years of service. Q And that was 16 years of you take the first chunk of time and add the second chunk of time? A Second chunk of time. Q Right. A That's -- that's what I thought it was for. Q Yeah. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 32 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 66 benefits were was based on what you'd heard from other employees at Schlumberger? A Correct. Q Do you remember the names of any of those employees? A Jerry Asher was one. Stan Herl was another. I'm trying to think. Hasan I can't think of Hasan's last name. Q What was Jerry Asher's job? A When I met -- when I first worked with him, he was a salesman. Q Salesman? A Yes. Q And had he moved and gotten some relocation benefits? A Yes. Q And what was his grade level? A I believe it was probably a 12 or a 13. Q And Stan, you said? A Stan Herl. Q How do you spell that last name? A H-e-r-l. Q What was his job? A He was a sales manager, a salesman, or a BDO. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 33 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 68 connection with your coming back to Schlumberger; they were just while you were there the first time; right? A Correct. Q And when you were talking to -- let's talk about Rabe first. We've talked about two calls from him, one where he offered the same amount you were making at Schlumberger, the 75,000, and you said no; right? A Yes. Q And there was no conversation in that call about relocation benefits; right? A No. Q Then you talked to Daniel next; right? A Uh-huh. Q Was there any conversation in that -- about relocation benefits in that call? A Yeah. He wanted -- he asked me the question -- one of the questions was, "Do you want to be relocated to Shreveport or Oklahoma City? I only want to move you once." Excuse me. And that's why I told him Oklahoma City because that's where the new shop was going to be. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 34 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 69 Q Okay. Anything else in that conversation about the relocation benefit? A No. Q And then your next conversation's with Rabe; right? A Uh-huh. Q Did you have any discussion with him in that call about relocation benefits? A Yeah. I said, "Now, the Grade 11 means that I'll get the full relocation and whatnot?" And he said, "Yes," according to what -- I think he said that Humberto had -- him and Humberto had had a conversation. Q Okay. But other than saying full relocation benefits, he didn't talk about specifics of what that meant; right? A Right. Q And then you get the offer letter dated December 10, which has a summary of the relocation benefits attached; right? A Yes. Q And there's no mention in there of a 6 percent bonus; right? A No. Q And there's no mention in there of a HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 35 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 70 of paying closing costs; right? A No. Q And did you ever once you received this letter and in the attachment it says that the relocation benefits are explained more in the policy, did you ever ask to see that policy before you accepted the offer at Schlumberger? A No. Q And when you came back to work at Schlumberger, you would have had access to that online. Did you ever go online and look at what was in that policy? A No. Q But then you sell your -- or you put your house up for sale in Midland. How long did it take to sell it? A I think two weeks. Two or three -- I mean, at that time Midland property was moving pretty quick. Q Okay. And then after it sold, did you ask someone at Schlumberger about the 6 percent bonus? A Yes. Q And who did you ask? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 36 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 71 A Raphael. Q Raphael Collin? A Yes. Thank you. Q And what did he say? A He had -- this was after I was already working there, and he says, "You don't get it." And so I went back to Rabe and I said, "How come I'm not getting this money?" And alls he said was, "I'm sorry." I (sic) said, "What are you going to do?" I said, "Well, I'm going to keep my job," so -- Q Well, did you ever go look at the North America New Hire or Rehire Gil and Below Relocation Policy? A No. Q You think -- A I just took it at face value. I liked the money I was making. I was making decent money, I was doing the job, and I was pretty busy doing the job so -- Q Okay. I think your lawyer turned over to me a copy of the relocation plan. Have you, after you left Schlumberger, gone and looked at that plan to see whether, for HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 37 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 72 Gil employees like you, they get a 6 percent bonus or the closing costs? A No. I've never looked at that. Q So between that time you talked to Raphael and he said you're not eligible and the time you left the company when you were laid off in March of 2015, did you ever bring it up again and say, "Where's my 6 percent bonus on the sale of my Midland house, or my closing costs?" A No. Q Well, what relocation benefits did you receive? A They gave me a -- what's called a house hunting trip, a realtor to help me go find a house to buy. And that was for a week, and paid for the motel, the mileage, the food that we ate when me and my wife was doing that. And then they packed up and moved my goods from Midland to Oklahoma City. Q Okay. Did you ever -- A I think that's pretty much it. Q But you never went and looked and compared those items to what was in the formal relocation plan for Grade 11 employees to see whether you got everything you were entitled to? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 38 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 73 A No. Q Other than the 6 percent bonus and the closing costs, is there anything else you think you should have received in the way of relocation? A No. I think that's all I should have received. Q And so what was your ending salary at Schlumberger? A 90,000 a year. Q Still 90,000? That's what you started and that's what you ended at; correct? A Yeah. Q And how many weeks of severance did you believe you should have received under Schlumberger's severance plan? A I think it's 32 weeks. Q But you never went and looked at the severance plan? A No. Q And you never looked to see whether there was a maximum number of weeks under the severance plan? A No. Q You never heard of there being a maximum HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 39 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 74 of 26 weeks under the plan? A No. Never heard that. Q No one at Schlumberger ever specifically told you you -- that there's no maximum, did they? A No. I mean, the only time it was brought up was when I was letting that guy go and I asked that question. Q And you were told for hourly, it's one week per year and -- A Salary, it was two weeks. Q Salary, two weeks per year? A Yeah. Q That was after you came back to Schlumberger just a few weeks before you were let go; right? A It was probably -- it was probably a month, maybe a month before I was let go. Q Okay. I have -- looks like Rabe signed an affidavit dated May 23rd of this year. Do you know how that came about? A Yeah. Q How? A I talked to him when he was coming through to pick his wife up for his son's HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 40 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 79 e-mail. Q In a recent demand letter your lawyer sent me, there's a claim for $5,000 of Borets lost wages. Do you know how that's calculated? A It's probably calculated because they offered me 95,000 a year. Q But that was in -- A That was the -- the attempt to try to keep me there. (Exhibit 6 marked for identification) Q (By Mr. Davis) That's Exhibit 6? A No. This is when I went back to work for Borets after I was laid off. Q Okay. So this is your last stint of employment? A Yes. Q Do you have a written offer from Borets with the 95,000? A Yes. Q Okay. Well, we'll ask that that be produced. Is it -- in that letter, looks like they put -- in this Exhibit 6, which is dated June 4, 2015, they put in there that "This letter is HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 41 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 80 merely an offer of employment. It is not nor is it meant to be an employment contract. Should you accept the offer, your employment with Borets is at will and for an indefinite term." Do you know whether the offer to get you to stay in December of 2013 had that language? A I'd have to see it. Q Well, you didn't think you had any guarantee that you would have a contract or something guaranteeing you continued employment at Borets, even at 95,000, did you? A I don't know. Q Okay. (Discussion held off the record) (Exhibit 7 marked for identification) Q (By Mr. Davis) Okay. Exhibit 7 is the December 2013 letter trying to get you to stay; right? A Correct. Q And that has that same language saying "This letter is not nor is it meant to be an employment contract. Your employment with Borets is at will and for an indefinite time"; right? A Yeah. It does say that. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 42 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 81 Q Yeah. So you knew that even with a $95,000 offer, there's no guarantee that they wouldn't fire you later on; right? A No. But I'd like to point out on this bullet 3 here, it says the retaining bonus as a one-year receipt or I would have to pay it back if I left prior to that. Q Right. Did you get any part of that bonus? A No, I didn't. Because I did not sign this acceptance letter. I went to work for Schlumberger instead. Q But you knew if you stayed at Borets, there was no guarantees; they could have laid you off, they could have terminated you? Weren't any guarantees; right? A No. Q And then this latest demand letter from your lawyer also says you should be Schlumberger ought to pay you the 15,000 retention bonus that Borets was offering. No one at Schlumberger ever promised you a 15,000 retention bonus, did they? A No. HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 43 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 82 Q And the salary Schlumberger offered was $90,000, not 95; right? A Correct. Q And you accepted that? A Yes, I did. Q And this demand letter also says you're entitled to a quarterly 15 percent bonus. Where does that come from? A It's in this document right here. (Indicating) Q In the Borets offer? A Yes. Q But Schlumberger never offered you a 15 percent quarterly bonus, did they? A No. Q And this letter from your lawyer says that severance ought to be $55,384.64. Do you know how that's calculated? A I think so. Q How is that? A I think it's the 16 years times my weekly salary, or the 32 times my weekly salary. Q So it would be 32 weeks and -- A Correct. Q -- if the severance plan says it's a HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 44 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 83 maximum 26 weeks, you think you should get more than the severance plan allows? A Yes. Q Why is that? A Because the only information I had to go by is when I was told it was two weeks for every year. Q And that was right before you were let go? A About a month. Q Okay. A Thereabouts. Q You had available to you online the severance plan if you'd wanted to look at it; right? A Yeah, but I really didn't need -- think I needed to. Q All right. Let's take a quick break. I may be -- well, hold on a second. In the interrogatory answers it says you had a $16,964.24 loss when you sold the house in Moore, Oklahoma. I assume you got some closing paperwork on that, what you sold it for. A Yeah. What -- that number was figured off of the HUD when I bought the home and the HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 45 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHNNY RAY WEIR, JR. Page 84 HUD when I sold it and the difference. That was the difference. Q Can you tell me where in any e-mail, offer letter, or relocation plan it says Schlumberger was going to pay you for the loss of the sale of your -- A No. Q -- Moore home? A No. Q And that's actually less than the money you made, the profit you made in selling your Midland home; right? A Yes. But what is that relevant to? Q In one of your interrogatory answers it asks for how you calculate your damages and it says it's based on a review of your tax returns and pay stubs. We don't have those, so we'll ask that those be produced. MR. DAVIS: Just take a quick break and we may be about done. (Short break at 12:35 p.m., resumed at 12:39 p.m.) Q (By Mr. Davis) About when was your on-the-job injury at Schlumberger? HG Litigation Services HGLitigation.com Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-1 Filed 08/01/16 Page 46 of 46 Sincerely. Schlumberier December:1Q, 2013 • . Johnny Weir 2819 Durant Drive Midland; TX 79705: 901241 4244 . :bear Johnny. • Schlemherger Oilfield. Sankes enprecielet your interest in our 'Company and. is excited about the prospect of you rejoining our orgenhadon. We-feel that Schlembergercen ptfer you-an exciting career challenge, i:- 1 am pleased to extend an offer of employment, effective December 15, 2013, as ART Center Duality Supervisor The actual effectiim date will, be the date the new .assignment commences: •Resed in Oklahoma City, OK, you will report .directly to Rabe AlramihLART Center Manager. . , As of the same date, your bi-weeldy base salary will be.USD 3,461.54 and your grade Willtepii. Additionally, you Will be eligibla to participle in the 0.10% Performance Ircentive Program OP). Please refer lobe US Employee Handbook on boarding documents and:Policies for mom information on employment pplidies and benefits. Upon acceptanciof put offer, please sign the secondpage of this letter and send:to: Manuel Humberto twins lean Personnel Manager --RPG Central Division" Schiumberger.: 711 Market Drive - . Oklahoma City OK 73114.... Should you have eny questions regarding.4 aspects-of this letter,. please.feel free to contact Manuel flumbarte- lariosLeon at-t1 '405 529 1912 and Miami gexchanba.sib.com. Congratulations and best withes for success in yourtereer with Schlumberger. Daniel Tesfamicael Operations Manager cc: Manuel Wilber% Lerios Won Kati 1410104 • . Ceitds; • • LIahomy Marl/099a8P Cgs' Canter'EMISOB Schlumberger[Weir] 00001 , t no ti ns Man mi , liurnbeno MON HMO Aral . Wan k g ber:19,2013 brow . o 3. r y U b i a 011 Seiv i m iabgs your intere t i r ' o pany and is excited about t r a i.m9on. e-feat that Sthlembargercati offer ?Dann evoking car r . • : I a Pleased to extend a ffer f e l t, ff ti r , , li awiser: l &rad o date wilt be the dat t t ne eses; 'Ras d in Oklahoma City, you wil r - ir tl t a lra int te ms data, your biweekly base sal ry will be-USD 3,961.54 and your grade will bec11. e ate in the 9-10% Performance Incentive Prorate Oil ;• T fer to.the US Employee Handbook on boarding documents andPol cias formore infos tiO to ti Kin l v FE -... . ' • 3 M .e r i t e o- 01 izi u, Lad L o , . nte i ' ° l Mar. .. zs 0. 3• cs P Pkip Onl t ..:OK 73 14.. m ..1: .. . a oueslioneregarding any aspects-of this le ter, t l H e o ' Ladool t+ 405 529 19 Word Ilexcliange. i l ti a Shes for guest in your ca Johnny Wen009688117 . Una oM197203011 il Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-2 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 4 Schlumberger RELOCATION BENEFITS Below is a brief summary of your applicable benefits. Please refer to the full polity for details. You will be assigned a Cartus Relocation Consultant to assist with your transfer. Upon acceptance, your relocation will be initiated by your new HR Manager, and a Cartus Relocation Consultant will contact you. During your relocation, your Consultant will be your first point of contact, If you need further assistance, please contact AskHR at AskHR.slb.com, or by dialing 1-877-9ASKHR9 (1-877-927-5479). If calling from outside of North America, please dial 1-281-2B5-8541. Your relocation benefits are defined in the applicable Relocation Policy, NAM New Hire or Rehire Gil and Below, which will be provided to you by Cartus. Privacy Notice: You will be required to sign a PRIVACY NOTICE AND CONSENT FORM FOR TRANSFEREES to be able to receive assistance from Cartus, House Hunting and Home Finding Assistance Provided that you do not own a house in Shreveport or the surrounding area, you will be entitled to a seven (7) day house hunting trip with Home Finding Assistance. The Company will reimburse all reasonable expenses accrued (i.e.: rental car, food, and lodging) during the House Hunting trip. Reimbursement will be paid once the relocation expense report has been submitted and processed. Itemized receipts are required. Final Move You will be reimbursed for reasonable travel costs for you and your eligible family members while en route to your new location. Reasonable travel costs are defined in your applicable relocation policy. Itemized receipts are required. Movement of Household Goods Cartus will assign a preferred household goods mover to assist you with the shipment of your household goads to the location of your new assignment. Storage is available for a maximum of 30 days. Please note that moves between June and September may require 3-4 weeks for shipment to be picked up, with an additional 7-14 days for transit depending on distance and shipment size, Relocation Allowance You are entitled to receive a Lump Sum Relocation Allowance of one (1) month new base salary (capped at USD 15,000.00 per month). Lease Cancellation Schlumberger provides reimbursement for lease cancellation of up to USD 5,000.00, Taxes You are responsible for your personal income tax on your compensation and relocation benefits. Schlumberger Spouses Association The Schlumberger Spouses Association (SSA) is a global, voluntary, social organization for all spouses and partners of Schlumberger employees. It is designed to provide a welcoming and CC Manuel Humberto Larios Leon Rabe Airaminl Cams Johnny Weir Cost Center 9208008 Schlumberger[Weil 00002 S chlum be rg er C onfi d en tial li l fit . l r f r t t f l polic i t t, If f rt r i t , l t ct sktI .s1 8 l ti fits are defined in the applicable Relocation Policy, NAM New Hire or Rehire G11 i t nce from Cat i llus il ssi r f rr l o . D I . cc l Humberto eek Alrami Genus nny Wee t Car w 9208008 l berger[Weir) le nu ep lu on 4a 6J aq u in it io s Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-2 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 4 Schlumberger (SSA) supportive environment for all members and their families, through ongoing social events and community involvement. To learn more visit www.ssafara.net. Your contact information will be automatically shared with the SSA. Please let us know if you would like to keep your information private. Spousal Assistance If your spouse/partner is seeking to continue his/her professional activities in the new location of assignment, the following benefits may be applicable: • Outplacement support • Language training • Visa & work permit support initiated by your new HR team, provided that visa allows for dependent work authorization For additional information, please discuss with your Cartus Relocation Consultant. le p ue pl 4 u o 3 Ja DJ aq uo ni tia s Johnny Weir CO Center 9M8M Schiumberger[VVeir] 00003 l L L S ch lu m b e rg e r Co n fid e n tia l nny Weir t r 9 iu bergeW Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-2 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 4 Schlumberger • :EMPLOYMENT comprphis Con 'This offer 6f ompleymantiand the italt date areconttngent • Obteining legal stains! for:employment In the .U.S.; within three lai.himinets days of employment, you will: • need la proirlde a ducjiMpnt or dokapents whickestehlIkApritity triid employ:up/it eligtbiliiy • .• Signing On EmployekOnlidentlidity, Non-Disichisore Apreinient Felon Which will be 'completed upon arrival • • rityOur lacatiOn. • " • . • • " , • ' • • Successful completion of keriminal badicgrOund check.. • Suailtsful completion of o;pm-employMent drug it nd alcohol test prior to your start data, • Odes will be provided after 'mei% of YeliritcPePtivice. • iiccesafel complationsd funclionej capacity tea, if eppliceble. ., • ' • • • . Ateetera . • • • . . W9 111111100 year response to this offer no later. than Decemberil. 2013,..Please indieite your acceptance of. this of for by sitiniNtnd rooming a caPyxdthis letter 1e. your EINManager: • ,:: .• , :• .. • • . • • accept YOur offer of employment. iinderstandifiat no andlit the comjiiiiiis authotb.6.1 to make Mel tittonittnisitts. . regarding employment, either noW or in the !Mara. I also understand that amployrimM is and will remain "at and can[ he terminated hypithetrnyself orilhoCompaniiWith or v]thoot molt) tor inyorno reason. • ... • • • Data - •- • • Please proyide.lhe following to assist with yourrelatatiom : Contact Phone Nuelh en. 1 0Z i2 Am you currently' a gflomeowneror ❑ Renter! Neese checkape. JaInnyWaIr 000110 Cod Cater NOM Schlumberger[Weir] 00007 tanhom •.: • J IVI L IWElif CONDITIONS . • fan* is- U f eraptcy e tand the s r ta nte tInge t PpOfithe folloWieg: :. btai i al st t foremplayment In tho wl$ three 131bilainue dayaal emPIPYmenty you it d to wilder) doctuttpet ot doeuree tat tublINtentily !Or E l men i t . • . • i ning e Bn l yekidldentk lity, No - I p i ur gl arientkonititach wig be 'complete cra t 'c b r log ll p "Su peatful Compladon of earit inal beekedund c e , gnietsf l anig a I f :e reern tit m anti alco at r tart Ste :Detail ' Pr i ft r i ailpt f yOuriatoaptafi , ..irccarafelcomplatineef functiottej c eat, I appli d* .1 reareartce : . . . • • 9 rectiteet lhallegae In i tt r 'flue t anatant . le Mit Of. of e dgnInge d return noll X4.1hIs !evert° your firOMartagar: .. • . . • I t year Offer rreiktymenttanderstanithat no onitit the condieryts nt er:el t Obi crnmilment r r i employment, either now or h the *Aura Pl o.erlderstand that eroPlotnent is and will swain "at •wgr, e t b tenteri t d byOt :even oritteCompanySlth or witiout nonte fOr any re . . e p:108.Mo fol owing to as reloc n: ' • rab r; q07.4 ' Qt. `49.1-1. re cu rogi liatlo e t ? Please chettin d yWalr 36/ tentin R080011 l r erl i 0 3 a Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-2 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 4 1 11 EXHIBIT S DATE DEPONENT PROF ib.11.1% Al ilLPENI ruts 800.376.1008 g- JelinnyWeir ODOM) Cog Center 920I0D8 Schlu mberger[Wei r] 00008 Nithinifterger SIB Rehire Date . -"December 15; 0.13, privIdad that yoo phi* the correctiirodc autherltatiant . . . • Thlienill ha &date wiedfor the !Paring oteafellating yak Sehlumbargee bridged' '1811.101.1tr ' .• .: ' “: .• - . • - BlIftlYee Stein . .101111 Home BovntryBeddent - . — • ' 61-WeeklyBan : sew ' 'ulsro ?Am's,' • No4 EmPloYentare paid 51-Weekly (newton weekson a Friday). .... . . Bons . Yoe Oil participate In the D-10% Performance irmaidiva Program (PIP). is. .Dchlemberger . Gide . .611 r • .• • . Nationality . ' . . American " Vacation .. . • : Upptcommencenint of empkyment asiffelltime empleyary your ilwagelred DU3 Seniority dale • Willineurted telitiimmine your annivarithgdate for Menotti of allvacation:calculadons. Vacation • It based on in accruaisiiitem —an ereployereams vacation data awry pay period while actively : employed/if your vacation creditaiconnt machos Its maximum ellmesnce balance, additional Njcation animal: aroopiendadandlost untkvacation days are taken to reduce-per aeceunt lielewthe"maximum allowance biddies. In addition, the maximum tecatithi harem* ildiltdattcon Oeartrom one Orme*. antis squat to 91% able Annualtfacadon AkOwance. : • - ' • - •-• - • • .. . . Ftectime ' Yebni el • kiwi Maximum Blyeekly - Carry-mg umit employees; .:• Selliality ' • Vacatbrr Varsalealreune Accrual Mite affea(ind : I1- 7 Years . 15 days 120. 4.67 7,5 days ... Siey %/leek • :7 - 14 Yams • 72 deys 176' 6.66. . 1i days 14+ Years - 25.days • 200 7.7 115 digs .. . . . . - 04.Years -214eys' • 168 6A4 10.5 days . . . 7 *week ' .. - 14 Years . . 366 days 2464 . OS? 15,1 daya - .,.. .,14i..Yeara .....15 days 219.-" 10.71 ..17S days ' The Masheem:Vatallon HmesTecCeldemla Saki SI be.1.251Imet the nimddefin maiden hours limpd haw . ' :: . • : . . Medical Plan:Ufa insurangil, ; " • . "Idgni • • insuratmatma • . Disability Plans .. . Compute &elle On US Benefit options will be providette'you by yolk HR Manager: You will have 31: days DOM the effpeduadatf your Wrath enroll blithe heilefilt: : . . If you choose to enroll,.Yea and Sddimbergerihare the cost of coverage for yourself and your Marble dependents. If OhaveAbititions alter reviewing Meet materlals,please comer AskHR :: . . • • . Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-3 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 2 Member 'at 1-87743ASKHR9f1i-17i7-9274.091to speill;tna US Salillimbergilonefits Admfaistrator. Sevings•and Profit • Shartni ' . . lhe Schiedam* Savings end Profit Shad* Plan ottani a convankint, portable and tax-el feting way to save fat the futunCilie 40liktfeature of the plan lets you save end Invest an a tex-deferred hada, and protrldes a rangiot investaitiat Ohms thfftyau can vigor to fit yourfenumel Investment strategy. Sabin:Merger belpayau to build your fluidal roam* by matching a , portion ofyour401110 contribution and makkardiscretIonary.pmflt shaiirg conuibutiond to the plan.,, .. you Will lubmisticAi heanrolted in the 4011k] plan at a rate ol 8%. Of your admissible sompensitIon. ' ' • : ' • . .. •• i Discounted Stock Purchasslish • (DSPP) - :: ' • •DSPP.applienin tn•US es per the plebrulis Infounallon about this plan will bai/0%08d to you by. your)1F1 Manager: • . 5 ul a JokrtyWelt 01903111- Cogt Canter 90011 Schlumberger[Weir] 00009 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-3 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 2 12/82015 RE: retirment medca From: Rabe Alramini To: Johnny Weir lweir11@laol.corn> Cc: Daniel Tesfamicael ; Manuel Humberto Lados Leon Subject: RE: retirment medical Date: Fd, Dec 13, 2013 1:40 pm Johnny Please contact Humberto he is on the CC and his phone number on the LOA we sent you. Thanks Rabe From: Johnny Weir [mailto:jweir11Paol.corn] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 1:38 PM To: Rabe Airamini Subject: retirment medical Rabe, I need something in writing that I will get the retirment medical back. Thanks, Johnny Weir jweirl leaolcom 903-241-4244 MOW* DATE DEPONENT li.."`" m"AL 800.3761006 omits https://mailaol.com/webmail-stcVen-us/PrIntMeesage 1/1 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-4 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 1 MISR DATE "MIEN!' WeitErtir AL 800-376. too 12/8/2015 RE: retirement medical From: Manuel Humberto Larios Leon Johnny Weir ; Rabe Alrammi Cc: Daniel Tesfamicael Subject: RE: retirement medical Date: Fri, Dec 13,2013 3:57 pm Johnny, To be able to get back to the Medical Retirement program you would have to pay back all the contributions that were refunded to you when you left SLB. Also since you are being rehired in 2013 you now will be under the new eligibility rule which Is 55 years old or 15 years seniority. Your seniority in SLB will be recalculated once we have the new starting date. Any other questions please let me know. Humberto Larios Production Group Personnel Manager — NAL Central Division 713 Market Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73114 Office s +1 405-529-1912 I Mobiles +1 405-248-8124 I Fax 1F+1 405 858 6208 Phone: 1-877-9ASKHR9 (1-877-927-5479) or local (281) 285-8541 Web Lint http://askhr.slb.com Email: askhrOsib,com From: Johnny Weir [mailtolweirl1Paolcorn] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 1:49 PM To: Rabe Alramini Cc: Daniel Tesfamicael; Manuel Humberto Larios Leon Subject: Re: retirement medical Humberto, Can you send me something in writing stating that I will get my medical retirement back? Thanks, Johnny Weir jweir11(Thaolcom 903-2414244 trtips://medl.aol.ccm/webmail-stden-Ls/PrintMessage 1/2 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-5 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 2 12/13/2015 RE regrement medical —Original Message— From: Rabe Alraminl To: Johnny Weir lweir11@aolcom> Cc: Daniel Tesfamicael . Manuel Humberto Larios Leon Sent: Fri, Dec 13, 2013 1:40 pm Subject: RE: retirment medical Johnny Please contact Humberto he is on the CC and his phone number on the LOA we sent you. Thanks Rabe From: Johnny Weir fmailto:iweir11(diaol.coml Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 1:38 PM To: Rabe Alramini Subject: retirrnent medical Rabe, I need something in writing that I will get the retirrnent medical back. Thanks, Johnny Weir jweir11faaol.com 903-241-4244 telps://mailsoltorn/webmei-seen-usfRintiviessage 22 Case 5:15-cv-00910-M Document 18-5 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 2