Uncowed casino exec sues ex-employer, wins

MGM Mirage ordered to pay CFO it fired $4.5 million in wrongful termination case

Steve Marcus

Gaming exec Bob Kocienski, center, talks with attorneys Daniel Marks, left, and Adam Levine on Tuesday at their office.

Wed, Jun 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Mirage employee admitted to lying about cash forms (5-28-2008)
Columnist Jeff German: Gaming's image is at stake (2-26-2003)

Five years ago, a top casino executive was blamed for not spotting a criminal employee, and sent packing with a severance check.

Gaming industry protocol suggests he should have kept quiet, lain low and let the incident fade with time.

Instead, former Mirage Chief Financial Officer Bob Kocienski fought back.

And on Friday it paid off after a jury awarded him $4.5 million in one of the largest wrongful termination claims in state history.

Kocienski said Tuesday his good name had been restored after having been wrongly made a scapegoat for a crime he did not commit.

“This has been a black cloud over my head for five years,” Kocienski said. “I finally feel vindicated.”

MGM Mirage is appealing the verdict, which company spokesman Alan Feldman says isn’t “supported by the evidence.”

At issue was a criminal lapse in financial reporting that brought major embarrassment to MGM Mirage as well as state gaming regulators.

In 2003, former Mirage employee Christopher Morishita was sentenced to three years of probation for failing to mail to the Internal Revenue Service more than 14,900 Cash Transaction Reports. Federal anti-money-laundering rules require casinos and other businesses to report details of large cash transactions or face prison time and massive fines.

Morishita had accurately completed the paperwork but did not mail it — akin to filling out complicated income tax returns but purposely not sending them in.

The failure was not detected by company auditors or by state officials.

After Morishita’s replacement discovered the piles of completed reports, gaming regulators in 2003 fined MGM Mirage $5 million — the largest gaming fine in state history — and chastised the company for embarrassing the gaming industry. Morishita is the only person in Nevada to be criminally charged in connection with cash reporting rules.

As the dust settled, MGM Mirage revamped its auditing procedures and fired 10 managers, including Kocienski, the highest ranked of the bunch.

Kocienski sued, claiming wrongful termination. In court, MGM Mirage said Kocienski was partly to blame because he was aware that the cash reporting department, led by Morishita, was behind in auditing the reports. Perhaps more concerned about saving his job than tackling the problem, Kocienski kept his higher-ups in the dark about potential red flags, the company said.

Cash reporting violations belong on the same zero-tolerance short list with underage gambling and cheating, MGM Mirage attorney Gregory Kamer said in court Friday.

Kocienski was fired “for having failed at his job” in not watching Morishita’s work, Kamer said.

Kocienski’s attorneys said he didn’t know of any failure to mail documents. Kocienski, they said, was so high in the management ranks that it was not expected of him to personally double-check Morishita’s work. “You can’t fire someone for not foreseeing the unforeseeable,” attorney David Marks said. “You had a criminal who was lying to everyone and showed no signs that anything was amiss.”

Employers can fire executives just as they do rank-and-file employees, but employment contracts protect company officers with lucrative pay packages should they be terminated without cause. MGM Mirage said it had fired Kocienski for cause, giving him $175,000 in severance but denying him the $4.5 million balance of his five-year employment contract — $3.4 million in stock options and $1.1 million in salary.

The Clark County District Court jury agreed with Kocienski on Friday and ordered MGM Mirage to pay off his employment contract.

There was more at stake than the money. Kocienski risked his reputation by taking the matter to court. Typically, such disputes are settled quietly, before going to trial.

But Adam Levine, who also represented Kocienski, thinks his client is too prominent and well-respected to have been blackballed by the industry for challenging one of its most prominent employers.

Kocienski, who has more than 20 years of experience in gaming finance, recently joined Tropicana Entertainment as chief financial officer.

A similar lawsuit filed by former Mirage Controller Brian Burtenshaw against MGM Mirage is still in progress.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By SPFPAUNIONYES

6/18/08 at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Employers can FIRE Executives just as they do Rank-and-File Employees, BUT Employment Contracts Protect Company Officers with lucrative pay packages should they be terminated without cause. MGM Mirage said it had fired Kocienski for cause, giving him $175,000 in severance but denying him the $4.5 million balance of his five-year employment contract — $3.4 million in stock options and $1.1 million in salary.

This Only Proves that if You Don't Have a Written Union Contract Protecting Your JOB SECURITY you are just an AT-WILL-EMPLOYEE and YOU CAN BE TERMINATED By MGM MIRAGE and/or any other Casino Without JUST CAUSE!

Why is it Ok For MGM Mirage Executives to Have A Written Contract PROTECTING Their JOB SECURITY and BENEFITS But its NOT Ok for The MGM MIRAGE Casino Security Professionals and Dealers to Have a UNION or a Written Collective Bargaining Agreement?

Employment Agreement - MGM Grand Inc. and
J. Terrence Lanni (Feb 21, 2000)

http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/a....

Employment Agreement - MGM Grand Inc. and James J. Murren (Jun 1, 2000)

http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/a...

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan - MGM Mirage Inc. (Jan 1, 2001)

Deferred Compensation Plan - MGM Mirage Inc. (Jan 1, 2001)

Employment Agreement - MGM Grand Inc. and Daniel M. Wade (Jun 1, 2000)

Employment Agreement - MGM Grand Inc. and Gary N. Jacobs (Jun 1, 2000)

Employment Agreement - MGM Grand Inc. and John T. Redmond (Jun 1, 2000)

Stock Purchase Agreement - MGM Grand Inc. and Purchasers (Apr 14, 2000)

Bylaws - MGM Mirage Inc. (Jan 1, 2001)

To View the above Agreements please visit our website:

http://www.spfpalocal7777.org/index.html...
By LionRoars

6/18/08 at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Doesnt this Maritas guy ever give up? He is not even a resident here and his opinion doesn't matter. GIVE IT UP, GO HOME!
By Vegascat

6/18/08 at 9:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

The protections of a union collective bargaining agreement are only as good as the willingness of union shop stewards and officials to go to bat for the members. Union members have no right to pursue grievences (even at their own expense) without the union's blessing.

That said, Mr. Kocienski had a contract with the Mirage. It appears The MGM Mirage could have saved itself alot of money and embarassment by simply paying off Mr. Kocienski under his contract. Instead, it appears that MGM Mirage has fallen victim to the "arrogance of power". Nobody is above the law -- including MGM Mirage.
By vegaslee

6/19/08 at 7:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Maritas is working Vegas to line his pockets like the other so called "union leaders".

Look who is making the money with Unions, the guys that run the union on the backs of the workers.

Just like the old racketeering days, pay us or lose.
By SPFPAUNIONYES

6/19/08 at 8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

In defense of Mr. Maritas and other "union leaders vegaslee obviously he has no idea what the law is in regards Maritas is working Vegas to line his pockets like the other so called "union leaders".

For your information Las Vegas is a RIGHT -TO-WORK - FOR LESS STATE!

Las Vegas Right –to- Work For Less LAW § 95-80. Membership in labor organization as condition of employment prohibited.

No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer. (Enacted March 18, 1947.)§ 95.82. Payment of dues as condition of employment prohibited.

No employer shall require any person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to PAY ANY DUES, FEES. OR CHARGES of any kind to any labor union or labor organization. (Enacted March 18, 1947.)

What this Means to You!

Under Las Vegas Right –to- Work For Less LAW
if the UNION WINS …YOU WIN!

There is no Requirement that you have to become a member of the UNION!

There is no Requirement that you have to pay dues to the UNION!

However YOU are Entitled to The Full Benefits and Wage Increases The UNION Negotiates on Your Behalf.

As to Vegascat's statement " The protections of a union collective bargaining agreement are only as good as the willingness of union shop stewards and officials to go to bat for the members. Union members have no right to pursue grievences (even at their own expense) without the union's blessing."

This is NOT True under the law any member can file a grievance with a UNION and if the UNION refuses to process or enforce it then the employee has a right to file a charge with the NLRB against the union and/or shop steward or both for failure to represent his employee an then the NLRB will investigate and decide the allegations on the merits of the case.

As to Lionroars statement: " Doesn't this Maritas guy ever give up? He is not even a resident here and his opinion doesn't matter. GIVE IT UP, GO HOME!

I have known Maritas for many years and he will NEVER GIVE UP in something that he believes in especially fighting for the little guy who struggles each day to make ends meet, but Lionroars you wouldn't know that because your properly the UNION-BUSTER who was paid Millions of Dollars for a two month campaign by MGM MIRAGE or just maybe your one of the Million Dollar MGM MIRAGE Executives!

As to being a resident Guess What I Hear Maritas is moving to Las Vegas very soon!

http://www.spfpalocal7777.org/
By BigStack

6/22/08 at 6:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Back to the original subject:

These types of jury awards are pretty routinely reduced/reversed on appeal. The plaintiffs lawyers know how to play up to jurors' "stick it to the man' sensibilities. But when it gets back in the hands of the judges, things change.