1. Can a bald allegation of systemic misbehaviour by a Plaintiff employee in a wrongful dismissal action be struck for lack of particularity?2. Whether a plaintiff employee can claim moral and punitive damages for alleged mistreatment of the plaintiff and other employees pursuant to this policy or practice?
"11. Mr. Covelli pleads that Sears has adopted a corporate policy or practice of terminating employees for just cause, notwithstanding that it knows or ought to know that no just cause at law exists, as a means of unlawfully evading its statutory and common law obligation to provide employees with notice of termination or compensation in lieu of notice. Pursuant to this policy, Sears has engaged in similar conduct with other (now former) employees, which is also the subject matter of litigation. Mr. Covelli further pleads that Sears' cavalier and reprehensible conduct in this regard will invariably exacerbate his ability to secure alternate, comparable employment."
I reject the the submission that an allegation of systemic wrong is not relevant to an analysis of bad faith or punitive damages. There are many cases where such allegations are considered in the context of punitive damages or bad faith analysis (see, for example, Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co.).
. . . the case largely turns on whether there is a risk of "limitless" discovery or discovery of "monstrous proportions". I agree with the plaintiffs' counsel's submission that the discovery plan process can be used to place parameters on the information that can be obtained. . . The Rules also provide for the principle of proportionality to address discovery issues . . .
If the impugned pleadings are permitted to stand, there will be fewer than 200 file reviews and likely far less than that number once it is conclusively determined how many of these cases are actually relevant . . . these are matters that can be explored in the discovery plan process and on discovery