Terry Dorfman versus Melaleuca Lawsuit, Max International and Ken Dunn

by Ted Nuyten on December 16, 2010

Melaleuca Sued for $5.1 million, Ken Dunn had a controversial role, Melaleuca made a management mistake by terminating top earner Terry Dorfman?

See also:

Melaleuca versus Ted Nuyten Lawsuit (Click here)

Melaleuca Official Response (Click here)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION, T. DORFMAN, INC., a Canadian corporation, and TERRY DORFMAN, an individual, Plaintiff, versus MELALEUCA, INC., an Idaho corporation, and FRANK L. VANDERSLOOT, individually and in his official management capacity, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Civil No. 2:10-cv-01213-DB Judge Dee Benson

Terry Dorfman

 

Frank Vandersloot

 

Ken Dunn
Terry Dorfman Frank Vandersloot – Melaleuca Ken Dunn – Max Intern

 

 

Plaintiffs T. Dorfman, Inc. and Terry Dorfman, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby complain of Defendants as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff T. Dorfman, Inc. (“TDI”), is a Canadian corporation with its headquarters in Ontario, Canada.

2. Plaintiff Terry Dorfman is a citizen and resident of Ontario, Canada, and is the sole shareholder, officer, and director of TDI.

3. Defendant Melaleuca, Inc. (“Melaleuca”) is an Idaho corporation, with a registered corporate office at 3910 S. Yellowstone Highway, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402.

4. Defendant Frank L. Vandersloot (“Vandersloot”) is the Chief Executive Officer of Melaleuca, Inc. Vandersloot is a resident of Idaho.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). The controversy is between a citizen of a State and citizens of a foreign state, and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

6. Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this complaint occurred in Utah, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2)

7. Melaleuca is a consumer direct-marketing company, and commonly known and referred to as a multi-level marketing company. It manufactures skin care and other health products and markets these products through a complex network of independent contractors referred to as Independent Marketing Executives (“IME”).

8. IME’s open accounts for customers to buy products directly from Melaleuca and enroll other individuals as marketing executives to build sales teams to engage in similar marketing activities.

9. An IME that sponsors a new IME into the organization has oversight over the new enrollee, by among other things, working with the enrollees in building, training, and promoting their sales teams. Thus, active IME’s can develop exponentially expanding organizations for which they have oversight. These organizations are referred to as “downlines” and a “downline organization.”

10. Each IME has the potential to create a multi-level customer base over which it has oversight. Each IME also receives a regular commission payment reflecting a certain percentage of the income derived from the sales made by other IME’s in his or her downline.

11. In July 2002, TDI enrolled as an IME with Melaleuca.

12. To become an IME, an IME in good standing must sponsor the individual or entity that is seeking to become an IME. TDI’s sponsor was an individual and fellow Canadian named Michael Commisso (“Commisso”).

13. Ms. Dorfman is TDI’s president and sole employee.

14. As an IME, TDI opened accounts for customers to buy products directly from Melaleuca and enrolled other individuals as marketing executives to build sales teams to engage in similar marketing activities underneath TDI. TDI also enrolled other individuals and entities as IME’s for Melaleuca, who in turn built similar sales teams within Melaleuca.

15. Between July 2002 and mid 2009, TDI made substantial sales and generated millions of dollars of income for Melaleuca.

16. Between 2007 and June 30, 2010, TDI earned $1,014,805 from Melaleuca sales.

17. As late as 2009, Melaleuca recognized and rewarded TDI for its contributions to Melaleuca. For instance, in 2009 Melaleuca presented TDI at Melaleuca’s national convention with the so-called “$2 Million Club Award.” Furthermore, Vandersloot, in his capacity as Melaleuca’s CEO, appointed Ms. Dorfman to Melaleuca’s “President’s Club.” Melaleuca also rewarded TDI for its outstanding sales performance by sending Ms. Dorfman, together with other top sellers, on a Mediterranean cruise accompanied by Vandersloot.

18. As of the end of June 2010, TDI had a lucrative downline organization. This organization consisted of 123 directors or above, and 4,367 customers.

19. In approximately March 2008, Ms. Dorfman met with Ken Dunn (“Dunn”) of Max International (“Max”) in Toronto.

20. Max is a multi-level marketing company headquartered in Salt Lake County, Utah.

21. In March 2008, Dunn was Max’s master distributor, one of the highest and most lucrative positions in a multi-level marketing business.

22. Ms. Dorfman scheduled this meeting in an effort to convince Dunn to leave Max and enroll with Melaleuca as an IME.

23. Accompanying Ms. Dorfman on this visit was Commisso, the individual that had sponsored TDI into Melaleuca.

24. Ms. Dorfman asked Commisso to join her in the belief that together they would have a better chance of convincing Dunn to join Melaleuca.

25. While Ms. Dorfman wanted to use the meeting with Dunn to try and convince him to convert to Melaleuca, Dunn wanted to convert Ms. Dorfman to Max.

26. When they met, Dunn told Ms. Dorfman that if she left Melaleuca and began to work for Max, he could guarantee her $30,000 per month. He also told her that if she worked full time for Max, she could easily make $100,000 per month.

27. Neither Ms. Dorfman nor Commisso were interested in leaving Melaleuca or joining Max, but they agreed to tour Max’s headquarters in Salt Lake City.

28. In approximately April 2008, Ms. Dorfman and Commisso toured Max’s headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.

29. Neither Ms. Dorfman nor Commisso joined Max.

30. As part of his efforts to woo Commisso and Ms. Dorfman to Max, Dunn provided complimentary Max-produced nutritional supplements to Commisso and Ms. Dorfman.

31. Ms. Dorfman gave some of these nutritional supplements to her kid sister, Barb Dorfman. Barb Dorfman was a Melaleuca customer, and had never recruited for Melaleuca. Both products included a glutathione supplement and a weight loss supplement, neither of which Melaleuca manufactures or sells.

32. Dunn informed Ms. Dorfman that if she wanted to continue to receive the Max supplements, she would need to sign up as a Max distributor.

33. Consistent with her prior determination, Ms. Dorfman did not sign up with Max.

34. When Ms. Dorfman refused to sign up with Max, Dunn asked Ms. Dorfman if she believed Barb Dorfman would sign up with Max.

35. In response, Ms. Dorfman told Dunn to call Barb to find out for himself.

36. Dunn contacted Barb and enrolled her as a distributor for Max.

37. In June 2008, Ms. Dorfman was visiting her long-time close friend, Natalie Foeller, at the Foeller’s home when Dunn called Foeller. Foeller told Dunn that Ms. Dorfman was visiting, and he asked if he could come and visit them.

38. Dunn came to visit and he, Ms. Dorfman, Foeller, and Foeller’s husband, Rick, went out to dinner. During that dinner, Ms. Dorfman once again unsuccessfully tried to convince Dunn to join Melaleuca.

39. In approximately June 2008, Dunn and Barb Dorfman asked Ms. Dorfman to attend a wine and cheese party at which Dunn and Barb tried to convince Ms. Dorfman to leave Melaleuca and enroll with Max. Foeller also attended this party.

40. Several weeks after the wine and cheese party, Foeller told Ms. Dorfman that she had decided to leave Melaleuca and join Max. Ms. Dorfman told Foeller that her decision to do so was a mistake.

41. After Foeller joined Max, Ms. Dorfman learned that Dunn had allowed Barb Dorfman to personally sponsor Foeller into Max. Ms. Dorfman asked Barb why Foeller had been placed in Barb’s downline. Barb told Ms. Dorfman that Dunn had placed Foeller in Barb’s downline because he thought doing so would entice Ms. Dorfman to join Max later on. Foeller confirmed this reasoning when confronted by Ms. Dorfman. Ms. Dorfman then told Foeller in no uncertain terms that she was not going to join Max.

42. Ms. Dorfman attended no other functions at which Dunn or any other representative of Max tried to convince her to enroll with Max.

43. Ms. Dorfman has never sold products for Max and has received no payments from Max.

44. In October 2009, Melaleuca held an Executive Leadership Council (“ELC”) meeting in California.

45. The ELC consists of Melaleuca’s top-selling IME’s. Ms. Dorfman attended the October 2009 ELC meeting.

46. At the California ELC, Melaleuca informed TDI and all other IME’s in attendance that it was concerned that many IME’s had been violating Melaleuca’s “Statement of Policies and Definitions of Terms” (the “Policies”).

47. In particular, Melaleuca stated that it believed IME’s had been violating Melaleuca’s policy titled “Non-Solicitation and Conflicts of Interest” (hereafter referred to as “Policy 20”).

48. Policy 20 states, among other things: “During the period that their Independent Marketing Executive Agreements are in force Marketing Executives and all members of their Immediate Household are prohibited from directly, indirectly or through a third party recruiting any Melaleuca Customers or Marketing Executives to participate in any other business venture.”

49. Policy 20 also states that: “Marketing Executives are independent contractors and may be active in other business ventures while they are Marketing Executives for Melaleuca.”

50. Melaleuca told the attendees at the ELC that Melaleuca would not terminate marketing agreements with the attendees if the IME’s filled out and signed a so-called “Amnesty Card.”

51. At the ELC, McKay Christensen (“Christensen”), Melaleuca’s President, spoke with Ms. Dorfman about the Amnesty Card, stating to her to be careful and not make any mistakes filling out the Amnesty Card. Christensen also stated that anything written on the Amnesty Card would not jeopardize Ms. Dorfman’s business in any way.

52. In response to this warning, Ms. Dorfman told Christensen that she hoped she was not making a mistake filling out the Amnesty Card.

53. The Amnesty Card stated as follows: “This document will exempt me from termination from the Policy 20 violation prior to this date that I have disclosed below. I understand that this document will not exempt me from any policy violation that I have not disclosed.”

54. The Amnesty Card then required TDI to list all “Compan[ies] (other than Melaleuca) that I represent or have represented”; and “Persons who are or may have been Melaleuca Marketing Executives or customers with whom I may have approached or discussed this other business venture”.

55. In response to the first question listed on the Amnesty Card, Ms. Dorfman wrote: “I do not & never have represented any other company since joining Melaleuca.”

56. In response to the second question, Ms. Dorfman wrote: “I asked Warren Peters to evaluate product for my sister who had joined Max Int’l. Natalie Foeller & I looked at Max together. She joined I did not.”

57. On November 11, 2009, Ms. Dorfman provided a sworn affidavit (the “November Affidavit”) to Justin Powell (“Powell”) and Johnny Morgison (“Morgison”).

58. Powell is an in-house attorney for Melaleuca. Morgison is currently a management level employee at Melaleuca, and, during the relevant time period, was in charge of Melaleuca’s Canadian distributors.

59. In the November Affidavit, Ms. Dorfman stated as follows: Michael Commisso and I met with Ken Dunn of Max International. At this meeting he told us that if we were to join his company he would guarantee our income and would put us in a good position in the binary. He felt that we could easily make $100,000 per month in the first year. Neither of us took him upon his offer. I did meet with Ken Dunn again, and at this time he told me that if I were to join Max and work it full time he would guarantee me $30,000 per month. He said if I joined and only worked it part time he would honor that guarantee if I got terminated from Melaleuca. Once again I declined. I was not and I’m still not interested in joining any other companies. After talking with Ryan [Nelson] the other day, I got a call from Ken Dunn wanting to know what Michael and I had said to Melaleuca. I never called him back.

60. On or about July 19, 2010, Ms. Dorfman received a telephone call from Christensen, Jerry Felton (“Felton”), and Ryan Nelson (“Nelson”). Felton was Melaleuca’s Senior Vice President of Sales, and Nelson was another in-house attorney at Melaleuca.

61. During this telephone call, Ms. Dorfman was informed that Melaleuca had stopped payment on TDI’s June 2010 commission check. This check was for $33,774.44.

62. Melaleuca told Ms. Dorfman that it had stopped payment on the commission check in light of some questions that had developed in connection with a separate lawsuit between Melaleuca and Max.

63. During this phone call, Ms. Dorfman tried to ask questions to clarify why the commission check had been stopped. Nelson told Ms. Dorfman that no one would answer any of her questions at that point. Nelson also told Ms. Dorfman that they would be in contact with her in the future for further questioning.

64. On July 21, 2010, Nelson and Felton called Ms. Dorfman and demanded she fly to Idaho Falls, Idaho, for a meeting on July 27, 2010. Ms. Dorfman agreed to attend the scheduled meeting.

65. During this phone call, Nelson demanded that Ms. Dorfman bring to the meeting photo copies of all of her personal and business telephone bills from January 2008 through December 2009. Ms. Dorfman complied with this demand and brought the records to the July 27 meeting.

66. On July 27, Ms. Dorfman was interrogated by Christensen, Felton and Nelson beginning at 9:30 a.m. at Melaleuca’s headquarters in Idaho Falls. Excluding a break for lunch, the interrogation of Ms. Dorfman proceeded until approximately 3:00 p.m.

67. Before the interrogation started, Ms. Dorfman was informed that the interrogation would be audio taped and that she would be able to receive copies of the audio tapes.

68. During the interrogation, Ms. Dorfman was asked about her involvement with Max. In response, Ms. Dorfman reiterated: (1) her visit with Dunn and Commisso in Toronto; (2) her visit to Salt Lake City with Commisso; (3) her discussion with Dunn regarding not wanting to continue to receive Max products and her suggestion that Dunn call Barb Dorfman himself; (4) her dinner with Dunn and the Foellers; (5) the wine and cheese party she attended at which Dunn tried to convince her to join Max; and (6) Foeller’s eventual decision to leave Melaleuca and join Max.

69. Ms. Dorfman told Christensen, Felton, and Nelson that she had not attended any other meetings with representatives of Max and that she had never joined Max or been paid any money by Max.

70. After the interrogation, Ms. Dorfman left Melaleuca’s headquarters. Shortly afterleaving, she received a phone call demanding she return to headquarters to meet with Vandersloot.

71. Ms. Dorfman returned and met with Vandersloot and Nelson for continued interrogation. This second round of interrogation was audio-taped.

72. Vandersloot told Ms. Dorfman that Christensen had told him that when Ms. Dorfman filled out the Amnesty Card at the California ELC, she had said she hoped she was not making a mistake staying with Melaleuca. Ms. Dorfman corrected Vandersloot and told him that she had said she hoped she did not make a mistake in filling out her Amnesty Card.

73. Vandersloot accused Ms. Dorfman of being more loyal to her friends than to Melaleuca. Ms. Dorfman informed Vandersloot that she was loyal to Melaleuca and had worked to develop her business day and night at the expense of her personal life.

74. Vandersloot accused Ms. Dorfman of not being fully forthright in reporting individuals that she knew were involved with Max.

75. Vandersloot told Ms. Dorfman that he would spend every cent he had crushing Max.

76. After this second round of interrogation, Nelson demanded Ms. Dorfman fax copies of her personal and business bank statements to him. Ms. Dorfman did so.

77. On Friday, August 6, 2010, Ms. Dorfman received a telephone call from Christensen and Nelson telling her that Melaleuca was terminating TDI for violations of Policy. During this phone call, Christensen and Nelson demanded that Ms. Dorfman pay back all money she had earned from Melaleuca since May 2008 – an amount totaling $677,177.26.

78. Six days later, on Thursday, August 12, 2010, Melaleuca began its annual convention in Salt Lake City, Utah.

79. On that date, Melaleuca held a meeting for its executives and senior directors at the Salt Lake Convention Center. This meeting was attended by approximately 1,500 people. Ms. Dorfman did not attend the meeting.

80. Among those in attendance were close and personal friends and business associates of Ms. Dorfman, including numerous business associates that Ms. Dorfman had mentored in Melaleuca.

81. The so-called “executives” and “senior directors” are leaders in Melaleuca, and are well-known in the Melaleuca distributor network as being top income earners.

82. At the meeting for executives and senior directors, Vandersloot told the attendees that Max was stealing Melaleuca’s IMEs, and that Ms. Dorfman was intimately involved in Max’s efforts to steal Melaleuca’s IME’s. Vandersloot also told all attendees that Ms. Dorfman had violated her contractual obligations to Melaleuca by violating Policy 20, that she had lied to Melaleuca to cover it up, and that Melaleuca had terminated Ms. Dorfman as a result.

83. Vandersloot threatened all in attendance that Melaleuca was obtaining subpoenas of telephone records of numerous former marketing executives, and that Melaleuca would find out who was talking to distributors at Max and sue them as a result.

84. Vandersloot provided the attendees with details about Ms. Dorfman’s alleged contract violations by announcing that Ms. Dorfman had arranged a meeting for her kid sister, Barb Dorfman, with Max, and that Ms. Dorfman was responsible for Barb Dorfman becoming a distributor at Max.

85. Vandersloot also announced that Ms. Dorfman had made in excess of $600,000.00 from Melaleuca during the time she was purportedly violating her contract with Melaleuca, and that Melaleuca was going to sue her to get it back.

86. Vandersloot also warned the attendees that if they talked with Ms. Dorfman at all, they would be sued by Melaleuca.

87. The defamatory statements were made solely for the purpose to threaten and instill fear in the minds of the attendees that regardless of income levels, Melaleuca would terminate and sue any marketing executive if there is any suspicion of a marketing executive violating the company’s so-called Policy 20.

88. After Vandersloot spoke about Ms. Dorfman, Nelson told the attendees that “crying” would not help anyone avoid being terminated, implying that the termination of Ms. Dorfman was an emotional disturbance and occurrence for Ms. Dorfman.

89. On August 18, 2010, Ms. Dorfman called Christensen and asked for copies of the audio tapes of the July 27 interrogations. Christensen said that it would not be a problem giving her a copy of the tapes. Ms. Dorfman also asked Christensen to detail for her all of her alleged violations of Policy 20. Christensen said he would talk to Nelson regarding her request and get back to her.

90. Also on August 18, Christensen told Ms. Dorfman that Melaleuca cared about her and would let her come back and start again as a marketing executive and that Melaleuca would help her in doing so, but would not allow her to start with her established downline organization.

91. On August 19, Nelson called Ms. Dorfman and told her she could not have a copy of the audio tapes.

92. Nelson also told Ms. Dorfman that if she would give Melaleuca some names of marketing executives who were violating Policy 20, Melaleuca would make a deal with her about  the money she would be required to pay back. Nelson also stated that if Ms. Dorfman ever wanted to come back and start over again from scratch as a marketing executive, Melaleuca would love to have her do so.

93. Nelson also told Ms. Dorfman that she was terminated for the following reasons: (1) enticing Commisso to visit Max; (2) giving her sister’s telephone number to Dunn; (3) attending the wine and cheese party and not reporting to Melaleuca the attendance of Foeller, Gary Harris, and Kathy Harris, all of whom were Melaleuca IME’s; and (4) when asked to do so  by her sister, typing up a list of people who were going to attend a Max event when the list included Foeller and the Harrises.

94. Melaleuca has filed numerous lawsuits in Idaho against its former marketing executives that are alleged to have left Melaleuca to work as distributors for Max, and are alleged to have violated Policy 20. These former IME’s include the Foellers, Laraine and Raymond Agren from Hawaii, and Gwendolyn and Ledell Miles from Georgia.

95. Melaleuca has not filed any such lawsuit against Ms. Dorfman.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract Against Melaleuca)

96. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs as if set forth fully.

97. Melaleuca entered into a contractual relationship with TDI when it distributed and Ms. Dorfman signed the Amnesty Card at the California ELC.

98. Melaleuca contracted to not terminate TDI for previous violations of Policy 20 if TDI listed all “Compan[ies] (other than Melaleuca) that I represent or have represented”, together with “Persons who are or may have been Melaleuca Marketing Executives or customers with
whom I may have approached or discussed this other business venture.”

99. TDI did not have any pre-existing duty or obligation to fill out and sign the Amnesty Card.

100. TDI provided all the requested information and complied with its duties under the contract.

101. Melaleuca has breached its contractual agreement by terminating TDI despite TDI’s compliance with the contractual terms.

102. TDI has lost its distributorship at Melaleuca as a result of Melaleuca’s breach. The value of this distributorship is estimated to be approximately $5.1 million.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against Melaleuca)

103. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs as if set forth fully.

104. Every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that the parties will do nothing to deprive each other of the reasonably anticipated benefits of the contract.

105. The duty not to act in bad faith or deal unfairly thus becomes a part of the contract, and, as with any other element of the contract, the remedy for its breach generally is on the contract itself.

106. By terminating TDI despite TDI’s compliance with the contractual terms of the Amnesty Card, Melaleuca has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

107. TDI has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but not less than $5.1 million.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation/Slander Against Vandersloot and Melaleuca)

108. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs as if set forth fully.

109. Vandersloot and Melaleuca made false statements regarding Ms. Dorfman at the annual convention. Specifically, Vandersloot and Melaleuca falsely stated that Ms. Dorfman had  violated Policy 20; that she was intimately involved in Max’s efforts to steal Melaleuca’s IME’s; that she had otherwise violated her contract with Melaleuca; and that she had lied to Melaleuca to cover it up.

110. Those in attendance included close and personal friends and business associates of Ms. Dorfman.

111. Vandersloot and Melaleuca intended these statements to scare those in attendance, stating that no one in the meeting was to speak with Ms. Dorfman, otherwise they would be sued by Melaleuca.

112. Vandersloot and Melaleuca published these false statements to all attendees of theexecutive and senior director meeting at Melaleuca’s annual convention.

113. Vandersloot’s and Melaleuca’s statements were defamatory in that they injured Ms. Dorfman’s reputation with at least the attendees at the executive and senior director meeting.

114. Vandersloot acted at least recklessly, if not with malice, in making the false statements. Vandersloot made the statements after he and other representatives at Melaleuca had met with Ms. Dorfman, during which meetings Ms. Dorfman had clarified that she had not
violated Policy 20, that she was not involved in Max’s alleged efforts to take Melaleuca’s IME’s, and that she had not arranged a meeting for her sister with Max.

115. Defendants’ defamatory statements were not subject to any privilege.

116. As a result of these statements and their publication to those in attendance at the convention, Ms. Dorfman has suffered significant emotional distress and other actual damage in  an amount to be proven at trial.

117. Vandersloot’s and Melaleuca’s conduct constitutes malicious and reckless conduct, such that Ms. Dorfman is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $5 million.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Tortious Interference with Existing Business Relations Against Melaleuca)

118. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs as if set forth fully.

119. TDI had valid and existing contractual business relations with all other IME’s and customers in its downline.

120. Melaleuca knew of these relationships by virtue of the nature of Melaleuca’s business model.

121. Melaleuca therefore knew of the numerous existing business relationships that TDI had established over the years with its customers and downline IME’s.

122. Melaleuca knowingly engaged in intentional acts intended and designed to disrupt the business relationships between TDI and all of its clients and downline IME’s.

123. Melaleuca has, through improper means and for an improper purpose, intentionally interfered with TDI’s contractual relationships and business relations with TDI’s customers/clients and downline IME’s.

124. Melaleuca’s interference with TDI’s business relationships actually interfered with and disrupted business relations with all of its customers and downline IME’s.

125. As a direct and proximate result of Melaleuca’s interference with TDI’s business relationships, TDI has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Interference with Prospective Business Relations Against Melaleuca)

126. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs as if set forth fully.

127. TDI was actively involved in locating, developing, and creating new IME’s and customers.

128. Melaleuca knew that TDI was active and highly motivated to market and purchase Melaleuca products, and to further grow and develop her downline organization.

129. Based on TDI’s years of lucrative sales production for Melaleuca, Melaleuca therefore knew that TDI was actively working to develop prospective business relations.

130. Melaleuca knowingly engaged in intentional acts intended and designed to disrupt TDI’s prospective business relationships.

131. Melaleuca has, through improper means and/or for an improper purpose, intentionally interfered with TDI’s prospective contractual relationships and business relations with potential customers and IME’s.

132. Melaleuca’s interference with TDI’s prospective business relationships actually interfered with and disrupted business relations with prospective customers and new IME’s.

133. As a direct and proximate result of Melaleuca’s interference with TDI’s prospective business relationships, TDI has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. Judgment against Melaleuca for contract, compensatory, and consequential damages, including but not limited to, special damages, in an amount totaling not less than $5.1million;

B. Judgment against Vandersloot and Melaleuca for compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, including but not limited to, special damages, in an amount to be proven at trial;

C. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper. DATED this 7th day of December, 2010

Facebook Comments

Facebook Comments

88 comments… read them below or add one

David Crescenzo January 12, 2011 at 1:59 am
It is sad to read some of the comments posted here about Melaleuca, its management team, and Frank Vandersloot. I worked with many MLM companies from 1992 to 1999, and could not find a home, left very frustrated and started a successful conventional business. At my brothers suggestion, I finally started building a Melaleuca business in 2002, and it has been the best experience of my life. I found the management team to be of the highest integrity and ethics, and I have tremendous respect for the entire team, especially Mr. Frank Vandersloot. He is not only a personal friend, but someone that has dedicated his life to the success of Melaleuca and the Marketing Executives. While it is never fun or popular to enforce policies, it obviously important to "protect the goose". In my 8+ years with the company I have seen so many lives enhanced and am honored to be a small part of something so great. Knowing the parties involved in this situation personally, I wish everyone the best in their future endeavors; as for my family, nephews, and friends, we look forward to a lifetime of working together with this great company.

RAFAEL January 12, 2011 at 2:12 am
I am currently a happy Melaleuca Marketing Executive. There are always two sides to every story and not everything posted above is true. Melaleuca is a great company. I have been in the so called "Industry" for more then 20yrs and I have never known a company with more ethics than Melaleuca. I have also the chance to know Frank L. Vandersloot not only as a CEO but also as a human being and let me tell you one thing YOU DONT KNOW what you are talking about. Frank will never try to intentionally hurt anyone, I will put my hands on fire on this. I also know Terry personally I had the chance to travel with her in Presidents Club, and I personally believe she made a mistake. If you need to help your sister and you make $300k a year Im sure there are better ways then cross line recruiting from the company that sends you $30K a month (that to me is just not smart). I think that companies have to enforce the polices and procedures otherwise all of our hard work would be destroy by greedy people that wants to take our groups to other companies. I would not like to work in a company were there is no law. Would you? Its very easy to criticize other people and other companies, but to all of you that love to criticize , let me ask you this. Do you know all the facts? I don`t think any one of us know all the facts, so I lets stop criticizing what we don`t know. I know the true will come out, and many of you will be surprised when you heard the truth so lets wait and see. Rafael

Karen & John January 12, 2011 at 2:45 am
We have been building a Melaleuca business for 16 years. During that time we have seen many leaders take their businesses for granted. It has always amazed me how someone earning a reliable, residual 6-figure income would put that in jeopardy by breaching Melaleuca's stated policies. Perhaps they feel that, having reached a leadership level, they can get away with these actions because the company "needs them." We have always been impressed by the fact that Frank VanderSloot and the management team consistantly stand firm on these policies. There are no exceptions and no one can expect amnesty simply because of their status. This is the way good companies are run. I, personally, wouldn't put my heart and soul into a business knowing that they operate with "old boys club" rules. Melaleuca stands heads and shoulders above most direct sales companies in that they treat everyone fairly and by the same principles. They are protecting the integrity of our business, so that there will still be an outstanding opportunity available for our children and their children. It is truely misleading when an uninformed person tries to position themselves as an expert to further their own cause. It is very easy and tempting for people with very little knowledge of the situation to sound like experts. So many people have jumped into this discussion without knowing any of the backround or the facts. Melaleluca does not pursue legal action unless and until they have irrefutable evidence and have given the Marketing Executive an opportunity to explain his/her actions. In fact, they are so relentless in the pursuit of the truth that they did not take action towards the matter in question for close to 24 months after receiving the initial information. They took this time to further investigate, make sure the facts and sources were accurate and even gave Ms. Dorfman the opportunity to come clean. She chose not take the opportunity to be honest and forthright about her activities when asked. My husband and I have known Melaleuca's CEO, Frank VanderSloot, for over 16 years. We have seen him in times of sorrow and in times of celebration. It is always with a heavy heart that he relays the news of a Melaleuca leader violating policy. To pursue these matters is not a decision made lightly. The entire management team and legal department spent hours (and sleepless nights) coming to the decision that the matter had to be addressed. Having worked in Corprate America for years, I know hard it is to find true integrity these days. Frank VanderSloot and the Melaleuca management team are recognized industry-wide for their integrity, honesy and good business practices. In fact, Frank has served on the Board of Directors of the DSA several times and has received numerous leadership awards such as the Better Business Bureau Torch Award. To view these awards and achievements, you can visit www.melaleucaawards.com. We are proud to work with and represent such a fine company. A company that does not bend the rules to stay popular. A company that has designed a marketing plan that is a departure from the MLM standard. A company that is so different from MLM they don't even fall under the same umbrella. A company that offers the same rich opportunity to anyone who is willing to do the work and follow the marketing plan. Because of their brave actions, Melaleuca has ensured that this company will be here well beyond our lifetime.

John Dufner January 12, 2011 at 4:49 am
It is really sad when a person becomes so desperate, either in their personal or business life, that he/she will go to such extreme measures to discredit everyone around them and try to make themself look like a victim. I have been with Melaleuca for 15 years and have known Frank VanderSloot personally for 12 years. I hold Frank and the entire Melaleuca management team in the hightest esteem. In fact, a person with just moderate integrity couldn't hold a position in the upper management team of Melaleuca. I have seen Melaleuca make tough decisions over the past 15 years. While sometimes these decisions are not popular, they are always based on sound principles. Policies are designed and enforced for good reason. Thank goodness there is actually a company that enforces its policies -- it is a rarity. Everybody has the ability to choose, but we also have to be willing to accept the consequences of those choices. Melaleuca has paid our family in excess of $20,000 per month, every month for the past 11 years and has provided life-long security for my family. Sure glad we chose wisely 15 years ago and happily accept the consequences of that choice.

Cheryl Alimena January 12, 2011 at 7:13 am
Isn’t it funny that so many people commented on this site, many who had never been with Melaleuca, and others that had been with them at one time or another? Now who’s commenting? Melaleuca’s own Executive Directors! Hahaha!! Think that Melaleuca feels threatened by the truth that is coming out so they are recruiting some of their own top leaders to write glorifying comments about Frank VanderSloot? Leaders who only know what they have been told by Frank himself. Ahhhhh, yes! We were in that brainwashing mode (oh, uh culture) for 17 years..... Melaleuca claims they have facts against Terry Dorfman....but what are the facts, and will the judge buy into it? That will remain to be seen. But I can betcha they don’t have what they claim! As we know, they can write whatever they want in their Policies and Procedures, that doesn’t mean everything is according to the law! Let’s look at Natalie Foeller’s case. Melaleuca also claimed that Natalie owed them a return of the commissions paid to her. Melaleuca claimed they were owed the commissions back because of the damage Natalie caused to them. The court ruled that there was NO proof that the commissions paid were not tied to profitable sales as a result of the Foeller’s work as contractors. Therefore, the Judgement was DENIED!! What does this mean? That Natalie earned every penny she was paid, and that Melaleuca lost that one! So now Melaleuca wants Terry to pay back the commissions she earned with them for the last 2 years! She was one of the top 10 fastest growing businesses both years with Melaleuca. Think she earned her check? Yeah, fair and square due to her hard work. Think any judge will disagree with that kind of record on file? Now Melaleuca wants you to believe that they have tons of evidence against Terry Dorfman? Well, let’s look at that! The three Marketing Executives (all EDs out of status) that wrote letters against Laraine Agren (yes, I know you were told that the letter you wrote would be confidential, but they weren’t!) were only speculating that maybe she was doing another business. NOT ONE of them could say she tried to recruit them to another business! So proof? NONE. Doesn’t it say in their policies that you can do another business? YES....but here we go again.....not walking their talk.

Judy January 12, 2011 at 8:41 pm
I am putting all of my Melaleuca products in my recycling box tomorrow, I think what they did to Terry was very evil, to say the least. I will also spread the word about this company.

Russ Paley January 13, 2011 at 12:31 am
I am proud to say I have been affiliated with Melaleuca for 19+ years, and only have positive things to say about the company, management team, and our CEO, Frank L Vandersloot. I have met many thousands of professionals over the past 20 years in the Direct Sales industry, and can honestly say Mr. Vandersloot is the most ethical, honest, hard working, and best business leader I have ever come across!! If you look at our countrys government, or your local leadership where you live, the President, Governor, Mayor etc, is always criticized for their decisions from time to time. I can tell you from my experience with Melaleuca that Frank Vandersloot has made some tough decisions for the company, but in EVERY case they have been the RIGHT decisions. Evidence of this is how Melaleuca has grown. In 25 years, we are approaching 1 billion in sales, and have no debt. While other direct sales companies are struggling, we are prospering. Our business model is tremendousely fair, and rewarding to those who work the business, and the legal dept safeguards our hard work, by putting policies in place to make sure violators are punished. Most guilty parties in the world in any crime deny their guilt, but I can tell you, I am sure Melaleuca has researched and owned their own data here, and has made the right decisions in this case. Melaleuca has paid thousands of part-time individuals in my business every month for over 19 years a total of tens of millions of dollars, and every check has come on time like clock work. I recommend Melaleuca to anyone looking to supplement their income, and wouldnt allow any mis information to deter that decision.

Jim McCune January 13, 2011 at 2:12 am
I have been with Melaleuca for almost 18 years, now. My brother, my daughter and I have made over $9.4 million since we started. I know thousands who are making secure incomes working their Melaleuca business. Melaleuca’s policies were made to protect its independent marketing executives. If someone violates those policies it hurts all of us. Melaleuca marketing executives can count on the fact that Melaleuca will protect their business from the unscrupulous activities of those who choose to violate those policies. You will never find any company more committed to protecting its independent marketing executives. That is one reason, during these tough economic times, Melaleuca grew in 2010 by over $80 million. Melaleuca's policies allow persons to work other businesses. But those policies specifically do not allow Melaleuca marketing executives to raid their own businesses to take their customers or other Melaleuca customers to other businesses as long as they're getting a Melaleuca check. That makes a lot of sense to anyone who has worked hard to build a business only to have it then raided by someone they considered a friend. Based on my experience, Melaleuca is specifically committed to protecting its Independent Marketing Executives from being raided by those people who formerly were trusted by their organization to meet their Melaleuca customers. Melaleuca promises its Marketing Executives that it will not allow their organizations to be raided in the following manner: When a Marketing Executive enrolls a customer in Melaleuca, that Marketing Executive often promises that customer that he will help that customer to build a Melaleuca business. The customer is then encouraged to bring the customer’s friends, family, and neighbors to the Marketing Executive to be introduced to the business opportunity. After the customer introduces his friends, family and neighbors to the Marketing Executive, the Marketing Executive, in return, tries to duplicate the process, by asking those friends to bring him their family, friends and neighbors, etc. It takes hard work, but over time, thriving businesses are built. That, of course, is exactly what the Marketing Executive promised the customer was supposed to happen. But suppose, later on, the Marketing Executive says to everyone, “thanks for bringing me your friends, your family and your neighbors. I know I promised to help you build a business and I did! I’m now going to destroy the business that we’ve built together. I have now decided to join a different business and I’m going to take as many of your friends, your family and your neighbors to that business as I can. And you can come along or you can stay. Either way, I am going to take your friends, your family and your neighbors. I know you trusted me, but you shouldn’t have! I know my doing this will rip apart relationships. I know it will destroy friendships! I know it will ruin livelihoods! But I don’t care, because I am totally independent! And I don’t need to keep my promises!” Of course, the above scenario occurs over and over in many MLM companies. Because of it, many lives are destroyed financially each year. Therefore, Melaleuca’s policies do not allow Melaleuca Marketing Executives to recruit customers away from other Melaleuca Marketing Executives into another business. Melaleuca enforces this policy very fairly, but very strictly and very uniformly. Melaleuca’s Marketing Executives expect Melaleuca to protect them from the unscrupulous activities of those who have previously masqueraded as their friends. Melaleuca's policies provide that protection. And Melaleuca enforces its policies to the benefit of all of us. If you were a Melaleuca Marketing Executive you should be very grateful for Melaleuca’s strict enforcement of this policy. To my knowledge, Melaleuca has always been fair in its enforcement. I do not have all of the facts in Terry Dorfman’s case. I don’t know if she is actually guilty. But, current Marketing Executives are not worried that this could happen to just anyone for no reason. I know the company and I know Frank VanderSloot. I consider both to be very fair. If Melaleuca's strict enforcement of its policy causes unscrupulous persons to avoid Melaleuca, I think that is a very positive benefit! Over the past 25 years the courts have sided pretty much exclusively with Melaleuca as it enforces its written policies. That tells me the courts believe that Melaleuca has enforced those policies fairly. I expect Melaleuca to win this one. Jim McCune - Corporate Director

Jim Lee January 13, 2011 at 6:43 am
This is so ridiculous. Are these Melaleuca execs so blinded!? They are completely changing the focus to blatant policy violations that everyone would agree are worthy of reprimand. Did Terry Dorfman do any raiding at all? Did she even enroll with another company? Is she responsible for reporting what her friend is choosing to do? Can her adult sister not choose to represent another company? Does that fact she grew and was recognized as one of the 10 fastest growing businesses not an indication of where her loyalty is? Can we let her take the fall for the reality that not all will stay in Melaleuca? Why is she the scapegoat? Is Frank's motive to scare the crap out of the leaders so that they are hostages to this company for their entire life! I am talking to leaders in this company and even though they report not agreeing with his decision they are too frightened to vocalize it. Sure doesn't seem like the United States of America to me! Maybe it's time for the Max International, ACN and Ogano-Gold reps who have all been sued in the past 2 years to come forward. 114 cases logged on www.Pacer.gov from Melaleuca. Come on Jim. Melaleuca doesn’t win all their cases they just bleed everyone to death. If you are smart you'll run from this company!

Monica January 13, 2011 at 6:51 am
Ted, can you get the information about Melaleuca suing people that went to ACN and OrganoGold? Is this true? Are they actually suing other companies as well? What about all their staff that have gone to Isagenix? Are they suing them as well?

Ed Bestoso January 13, 2011 at 6:59 am
To Whom It May Concern: I have been with Melaleuca for 19 years. There are four reasons why I decided to build a Melaleuca business. 1. Great products everyone needs and loves, 2. To own my own business, 3. To create residual income that would be willable to my children, 4. To have a management team with integrity that I could trust long term. Melaleuca's management team has protected my interest as well as hundreds of thousands of marketing executives for 25 years. (THAT'S INTEGRITY) Life presents us with many decisions, some right some wrong. Unfortunately, some marketing executives make the wrong ones especially when they try to take down another’s business for their own net gain. I stand behind the policies that have been set forth by Melaleuca because of the four reasons I mentioned. I am sure that 99.9% of the folks that build a business with Melaleuca want the same. A real company with real products that everyone needs every month. A safe place for the average person to build a business with integrity. A real business not an M. L. M. DEAL! I champion Frank L.VanderSloot and the Melaleuca management team for protecting all of our businesses every day, and if anyone thinks that is wrong, I beg to differ. When you enhance lives you win in more ways THAN ONE. To those who understand no explanation is necessary, and to those who do not understand, no explanation will suffice. Truly yours, Ed Bestoso Building a business to last a life time for my family and yours. p. s. OUR MISSION STATEMENT: To Enhance The Lives Of Those We Touch By Helping People Reach Their Goals.

Lisa K January 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Really Ed? I was in Melaleuca and you are not telling the truth! Own your own business? Wouldn't that mean that you could transfer it or sell it to someone else? You don't own your business there...networkers beware! The only time you can pass your business to a family member is if you DIE. Residual? Maybe those that have written above are under the old policies but if you join melaleuca now be prepared to never stop working! I know Executive Directors who have been qualified for more than 10 years who still cannot stop producing their "leadership points". Give me a break, Ed Bestoso, we are a lot smarter than you think! Lisa Proud to be of ACN

Tracy Leigh January 14, 2011 at 12:36 am
It's been interesting reading all the blogging above. A couple years ago I enrolled in Melaleuca and used the products for a few months and was considering the business. I had just spent 4 years with a skincare company and had begun to learn the right questions to ask when considering a business. In my skincare company I couldn't sell my business and that was an important criteria. When I investigated Melaleuca deeper, I learned that there was no enjoying the residuals-there certainly was no selling your business(so you definitely didn't own it)and there were exhausting monthly requirements that only grew with your status. I found the products to be good but inconvenient to order and the 35 product point requirement too high for our family's average usage. I've watched Natalie Foeller continue to speak highly of Melaleuca even after leaving(even encouraged me to try the products and keep an open mind). While in my skincare company I had heard rumours about Melaleuca but I have to admit I've been quite shocked to see the efforts they go to to hurt people who have chosen another path. Or worse how they have dealt with Terry Dorfman who was totally loyal to Melaleuca but chose to keep a friendship with a former Melaleuca Executive. Maybe this horrific exposure will redefine the Network Marketing business and fewer distributors will have to endure what former Melaleuca Executives have recently experienced.

Judy January 14, 2011 at 2:37 am
I was so surprised that my recycling trucks would not take the Melaleuca products,they labelled them as toxic, how does that feel Melaleuca hot shots, that have cut up every other company on the planet, you try to brain wash everyone into thinking your products are the best. You are only in this for the money, I am sure a year ago from now you were all friends with Terry, now look at all of you two-faced people. Even during the 911 attack some of these people making big bucks were so concerned that people would not order any Melaleuca products because they could no longer afford them, these people were not concerned over the tragedy only their pocket books.

Alison Pickard January 15, 2011 at 4:29 am
Perhaps some of us have forgotten that it is important to wait until all of the facts of a legal matter such as this have been revealed. The human condition being what it is, I am sure we all hope that the 'side' we support has done nothing illegal, unfair or unjust. But we would all be wise to be cautious about laying blame without clear evidence - or at least direct experience that could be entered into evidence in a court of law. I can speak to my personal experience with Terry Dorfman. I remember clearly being at a Melaleuca meeting in Toronto when I heard that Natalie Foeler had left Melaleuca for a company called Max International. Within a few moments I weaved my way through the crowd to find Terry and I asked her if this was true. Her response was "I think she's crazy for going there". In all the time that I worked with Terry, she always said that "you cannot work more than one business at a time". So perhaps we should all take 'a deep breath' and wait for the facts to be produced. Wouldn't you want your friends and colleagues to do the same for you? In business, issues come up, accusations and beliefs are given life, but in the end we must stand by the facts that are revealed. Let's use the same values that Melaleuca stands by and give the same to Terry Dorfman until and unless we see evidence to prove otherwise.

Greg Dicks January 15, 2011 at 7:34 am
Sorry, I am repeating this from the other site as I put it in the wrong place. Where does one find the policies and procedures for Melaleuca(can't seem to find them at the Melaleuca website) so that I can check out the ability to sell your business. Also, I asked the person I knew working Melaleuca if it was true that there really was no retirement and she said that was not true. She said after you've worked for 10 years you can stop and collect all your income with no penalty. She said it didn't matter how much you were earning. I think she is mistaken. She said if she would never be investing time with the company if she believed that she could not stop at whatever income she chose once her 10 years were up. But what if someone doesn’t want to work for 10 years and were happy with the $700-$800 they were collecting every month. Is it true that they can’t just collect it for as long as it is coming in whether they never tell another person about the company or products again? I'd also like to know how they feel about introducing your family and friends to other network marketing products that you think might be good. I hear rumors that once you are a melaleuca customer they will not tolerate you introducing them to any other network marketing product. Really? I heard a ex-melaleuca person say that Melaleuca believes that the customers you bring to them (even your own family members) are now their proprietary property. Maybe this is an exaggeration from someone scorned? I hope this woman gets a fair day in court and I hope that we all take a good look at the practices out there and clean up the industry. Maybe we need to redefine what it is to be an independent contractor. At least we need to do our due diligence before deciding who we are going to contract with. Good luck to the parties involved. From what I read your error was in aligning with a company that doesn’t honour their distributors. I don’t know who is right or who is wrong (I’m sure both sides have lots of evidence not yet revealed) but I know that I wouldn’t consider Melaleuca until my concerns were answered. Thank you for this blog. It certainly is better preparing me with the right questions to ask.

Candice January 15, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Greg the person you spoke to in Melaleuca is lying to you. There is no retirement unless you are part of the old group or you reach corporate director (good luck with that!). Even if your check were only 700.00-800.00 you would be required to produce business every month. You need to tell your friend that she is locked in and will never be able to stop. I can also tell you that even your own parents will be the property of Melaleuca once they decide to try their laundry soap. I don't know if this woman has a chance to fight Mr. Vanderslott since he clearly has more money than he knows what to do with. I'm glad I got out when I did and started working with a company that allows me to stop if I decide and allows me to sell my spot if I decide to do that. Oh yeah, you absolutely cannot sell your position. You can pass it to your kids if you die but if they don't work it monthly, they will lose it too.

Sandra Cantesano January 18, 2011 at 10:26 am
I know that there are many on here thinking that it is just Corporate and Executive Directors leaving comments on here. And I am sure you also believe it is prompted by Melaleuca. So, I felt the need to speak up as well...from "the little guy". My husband and I have been involved with Melaleuca for almost 4 years now. I started out in the corporate office and then because of what I learned about this company, it's high standard of ethics, Frank Vandersloot himself, and truly every facet of this great company that I decided to build my own Melaleuca business. I am not a Corporate Director, I'm not an Executive Director. Heck, I'm not even a Senior Director. I'm just "the little guy". But, I was also on Terry's team. Terry was a great leader and I learned alot from her. I chose her team! When all of this happened it was a whirlwind. I don't know the details nor do I claim to. What I do know is Melaleuca, inside and out. Think about it, I lost my leader! But, am I angry with Melaleuca. NO WAY! In fact, it gave me great comfort to know that they had my back, the little guy. As someone posted previous, don't judge until we know all the facts. I just know in my heart, and with my knowledge, Melaleuca would not have let her go if there wasn't a really good reason. Think about it, if you read the suit above. Terry was on President's Club, she was a high executive, she was actively building a business. Do you think, financially speaking, that Melaleuca would let that all go if they didn't have a really good reason to do so. Letting her, a hard working executive, go had to be a difficult financial decision. But they did it, for people like me "the little guy". If I was Ed Bestoso, or Russ Pailey, or any top earner in the company a customer or two getting pulled away isn't exactly going to break the bank. But for me, that would make a HUGE difference if I lost those customers. Melaleuca puts these policies and procedures in place to protect every single one of us. What if her sister Barb was placed in my organization? Barb leaving would have left a big hole in my little business. If you read the one-sided suit above, Terry states she gave the sample product to her sister. Product from a business that was clearly trying to recruit. I received a free box of product from Healthy Child the other day filled with all kinds of natural stuff. Some were not competitors of Melaleuca and some were. I sent it back! If my brother or sister-in-law find that stuff on their own...more power to them. But they sure aren't going to get it from me. What if they liked it, wanted to find out how to get more, then discovered it was a home business and decided to do that - all because I gave them the free samples. That, from a business perspective, doesn't even make sense. I was in traditional sales for years prior to coming to Melaleuca. I sold events. Guess what, I was only as good as my next sale. If that next sale didn't come, guess what I didn't get a paycheck. But with Melaleuca that's different. You say it's not "residual income". You are very, very incorrect. November and December, were difficult months for me. I lost BOTH of my Grandmas within two weeks of eachother. My life was turned totally upside down. I couldn't work, my head just wasn't there. But you know what, I still got a check each month from Melaleuca. If that's not residual income then I don't know what is. If I had taken the "me" time off for two whole months when I was selling events you know what I would have gotten. I would have gotten a "Sandy, sorry to hear about your loss", certainly not an "I'm sorry for your loss paycheck". Not Melaleuca, they still paid me...for doing NOTHING. That IS residual income. Now, you said that they have to continue to work. Darn straight they do. Do you know why? Because Melaleuca isn't like the other companies that have leaders that are sitting on their duffs watching everyone else under them do all the work to put money in their pockets. If they can do that, are they really "leaders"? I tend to think they are more sponges than leaders. Not in Melaleuca. Melaleuca says, if you're going to be a leader you need to continue to lead. You can stop working all together and you're still going to get a check - that's residual. But if you want to receive a leader's check, you gotta lead. Which means you've gotta work. The more you mentor, teach and lead, the more leadership points you earn, the bigger your paycheck. Folks, that's no different than mainstream Corporate America - you don't work you don't get paid. Melaleuca - you don't work, you still get paid, just not as a leader. Frank is the CEO of Melaleuca. He could sooo easily sit at home with his lovely wife, children, and grandchildren and let Melaleuca pay him to do nothing. Does he do that? No, he works. Do you know why? Cause he LEADS! He doesn't expect any marketing executive (Corp, Exec, Senior, or Director) to do what he won't. Terry, I wish you the best of success in whatever you do in your future. I know you will have it because you are just that kind of person. Someone told me recently, if you didn't ever advance in a status or didn't receive a check, would you still do it? Would you do it just because you want to share how good it is for other people? If so, then you are doing it for the right reasons and the success will come your way because you care more about others than yourself. In a Melaleuca business "you gotta have heart"! Melaleuca is a good thing; as a business or a customer. Two last comments: 1st, Judy - no doubt your recycling truck drivers didn't know there were no safety caps and therefor they were not toxic. And 2nd, Tracy - did you truly convert your home? I'm guessing that you most likely didn't start out with one of the home conversion kits. That is really the best way to start because you get to try more product all at once. Because of that you really get a chance to see how many products replace others that you are already using in your home. I am a family of 5 and I never order less than 80-90 product points on average in a month. And that is all stuff we NEED! My mom, however, is single and lives alone. She is the most frugal person I know and she orders 40-45 product points a month - it's all stuff she NEEDS. If you really loved the Melaleuca products I would suggest taking a second look at what you are using right now in your home that would convert to Melaleuca products, I think you'd be surprised.

Randy Franklin January 21, 2011 at 1:42 am
I find it incomprehensible that a company the size of Melaleuca would require an individual to pay back commissions that party honestly earned over the past 2 years. What does that say about senior management and the company itself? They should honor their commitments and make a fair and equitable settlement with Ms. Dorfman. I cannot imagine the emotional toll that this is taking on her and I am sure that if this ever gets to court, the judge would side with Ms. Dorfman and in addition to monies owing Ms. Dorfman, I am sure that the court would see through this charade and order Melaleuca to compensate her on an equitable basis. Otherwise this would be tantamount to a total miscarriage of our legal system.”” Take care, Randy F

The Truth Will Set You Free January 21, 2011 at 9:40 am
Wow this is amazing and It happen to me before. I use to be in Morinda Now Tahitian Noni International and happen a similar situation. What about work in a new country and from zero to almost a million (yes $1,000,000) in sales a month. Hard work, almost get me to a divorce. Why because I found the perfect bussiness the perfect company the perfect plan. But after all that hard work and develop the first system for warehouse for other countries and the system that the company fallow after we develop it. And then what, the company decided to take over my country. We develop like 10 employees, offices and training, but what happen? !0 peoples lost their jobs in 1 day. They decided that they can run the operation without us and in the process save thousand on dollar. What about work with over 5,000 distributors, have our own customer service etc. But greed likes the program AMERICAN GREED. I didn’t know too much about the owner of the company, and the policies and procedures. But what a lesson. Years later I found that he was order to retire from NATURE SUNSHINE (he said that he retire himself) Peoples we need to read the policies and procedures, the terms and condition, search on the Internet about the company, about the owners. Don’t be blind when everybody is happy there is no problem but what a sad story to this Lady in melaleuca. After hard work, just for talking to someone in another company you get terminate. WOW. Peoples if you are going to be in MLM you MUST READ ALL THE POLICIES. Because when everybody is happy there is no problem but what a shame. Just Google melaleuca and you can find many similar situations, just put –melaleuca sue- BUMM 423,000 result. If you are developing your business you should be able to sell your business to anybody. What about you work for 20 years and you started in your 20, now you are 40 and what to retire. You know what you cannot do it. What a sad thing after all those 20 years. I’m not talking that the product are bad, I’m not talking that the pay plan is bad. They are really good product. But what about honesty, what about not lie to distributor. What about not allow you to be free a work for someone else. What about have a win win situation for the distributor and for the company. Be careful. Don’t be blind an remember The Truth Will Set You Free Angel Garcia dameunaopinion punto kom

cairine January 22, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Guilty as charged? I can't believe how many people are making this all about them...their experience with Melaleuca, and totally disregarding the fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Most of you are considering that Terry is guilty as charged! She has never been desperate to build her business. Her intent, if you read the law suit, was to show a top earner in Max International a Melaleuca business, not to join another business. Isn't that how many of you have built your business..by talking to successful people from another business? If that makes her guilty, then just how many of you should also be terminated by Melaleuca for talking to other successful people in another company? Think about it! Terry always trained her group that you cannot build two businesses successfully. You have to dedicate yourself, and focus on one and commit to doing the activities persistently and consistenly. In all my years in networking, I have never met a person so dedicated to building a business as Terry Dorfman. She ate, slept and drank Melaleuca. I know of times when she did presentation calls when she was in personal pain. To think that this has all been twisted to make Terry look guilty is beyond comprehension. I just wonder who gained by reporting on Terry's dinner engagement. All of you executives who have posted here have known Terry over the years. How can you think that she was about to go to another company after working so hard to become an executive? Her eye I'm sure was on a corporate as position as she was truly driven for success. Cairine Evans

Alison Pickard January 24, 2011 at 12:12 am
Well said Cairine!

Shirley B January 24, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Finally, Melaleuca is being seen for what they really are. Bullies! Here in the UK I started building with them and although not a big business it was taken from me. Why? I held a candle party for a friend and invited some of my Melaleuca customers to see the new line of candles. Apparently that was a violation. Even though my friend then had a party for me to introduce the Melaleuca products. The boldness and arrogance of this company continues to floor me. I hope this woman wins so big that Melaleuca thinks twice before ruining anymore lives.

Judi Switzer January 26, 2011 at 3:00 am
I never knew anything about multi level marketing until I was introduced to Terry Dorfman. She blew me away. I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times before, but REALLY, did you EVER see anyone work so hard EVER??? It didn't matter what time of the day or night I needed questions answered on the products I bought, but she was so much fun to talk to. She made me love the melaleuca products and all that it stood for. She told me such beautiful stories about how the owners gave back to the community and that they were a solid and gracious company. She was so devoted and proud to be part of Melaleuca. Then I got a call that she was terminated. I couldn't believe my ears. I had just gotten all the confidence in Melaleuca that was needed to tell my family that we were going into business. My only hope was that I could EVER be the representative that Terry was. I felt like Terry WAS Melaleuca. It is all she ever talked about. New products, new incentives. It was her life. My writing this is because I cannot believe that a company has the right to just terminate someone on some "basis" that doesn't make a great deal of sense. The world is full of competition. Competition is what makes the world and it's businesses so great. What is Melaleuca so afraid of? I truly don't understand. I remember a night that a man named Micheal Commisso came to our building drunk. I had never met him but I am on the board of Directors. I got another emergency call about this disgraceful behavior in the lobby and it was not Micheal's first time here with such poor behavior. We have it on tape on different occasions. This man was in this building many many times to visit Terry long before her termination. I understand that he was her enroller. Why is he not fighting this with her? That's what has me so confused. What is it that Micheal Commisso has to gain by Terry's termination? There must be something. I don't notice this man having a legal battle with your company. What am I missing? I am so sorry if I seem to be running on about this matter, but it is so ridiculously incredible that I want to know what I can do to help Terry. There are so many of us that want to help her. If we need to come to Utah where it seems it should be legally, then please let me know. I will make plans. Can a company be so huge and have so many politicians admire them that Melaleuca has the legal right to keep a case such as this in a community where they feel safe? Is this legal? I don't know a great deal about contracts, but I do know that contracts are NEVER 100% solid. A proper lawyer that deals strictly with contracts should be able to explain and change correctly anything that even Melaleuca in it's safety zone of Idaho Falls has set in their paperwork. I finally decided to work with Terry and then my own dreams were shattered. Watching her work, watching her success, enjoying her company and most important she always took time to explain things beautifully. I will miss this opportunity to have been so successful because I knew Terry Dorfman would make it that way. She is the most incredible "worker" I have ever had the good fortune to meet. Shame on you Melaleuca. I understood that you were a company with God and values.

Shelley D January 27, 2011 at 1:35 am
Reading over some of the comments supporting Melaleuca, it is blatantly obvious; especially the verbose ones were either drafted or submitted by Melaleuca's legal team. Looks like someone is getting desperate!!!

Norman H January 29, 2011 at 7:27 am
Has anyone seen the new site www.melaleucastinks.com ?

Natalie Foeller January 30, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Unfortunately, I never have a day free of thinking about the power and consequences of choosing network marketing as my "chosen" industry. I've experienced the paradox of loving and hating the profession all in the same moment. There is no regulatory body that truly manages the behavior of company owners and no regulation for the "independent" contractor. We do not fall under the protection given to an "employee" of a company but neither have the independence of someone who is an independent business owner. Throwing bricks at individual companies is not going to solve our much bigger issue. We all agree that there are companies that love and respect their distributors and behave like an "A" company. If they error, they acknowledge it and correct themselves. There are however, companies, that are fuzzy with the distinction between being an employee and being an independent and abuse their powers. We are no match financially to them at that is where it all begins and ends. We need to stand up in masses and decide that together we can influence the industry because individually we are no match. Nurse, Doctors, Engineers, Accountants and all professions have a regulatory body that outlines standards of practice but also protects their rights. We are working hard to demonstrate that Network Marketing is a profession that is filled with individuals who want to adhere to a standard of practice but also need and want protection from companies that decide they can write their own rules. How do we effect policy at a State and Federal level so that we can truly grow as a profession and become the industry of "choice". As Eric Worre so eloquently repeats..."We do have a better way"....but do we really right now?

judy January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I can tell you from my experience with Terry - I don't trust her. I have seen her say things that are not true and so it's hard for me to believe just about anything she says anymore. If based on that alone, I probably lean towards the company being right here. I've looked into Melaleuca before, though I'm not a distributor of theirs now because there are better opportunities out there, but the people I've spoken with about the company say it's a good company to work with. Plus, I have to think if they were getting rid of people just to pocket the money, You'd think they'd get rid of some of the people who make the big bucks like Ed Besdoso or one of those making millions instead of someone making a few hundred thousand. It feels to me more like a situation of a husband getting caught cheating on his wife, and then getting mad at the wife when he gets caught and she wants a divorce. From there things tend to just get messy.

Brad February 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm
This is not the first dance they have had......perhaps I know more then most as I was there in the very beginnings of this company. I could not work for nor be part of this company AND sleep at night. Just say'n

Robin Thompson February 2, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I am a Melaleuca IME who had reached the status of Director6. However, since Terry's termination and and consequent lack of support and motivation my satus has dived to Director, with the corresponding reduction in earnings. . I have known Terry for over 7years and must state that I have never come across anyone as dedicated to any company or cause than Terry was to Melaleuca, I have never known Terry to lie or decieve and she has always done her best to promote the belief that - the truth is good enough -and always refused to hear anything negative regarding Melaleuca. Anytime I needed support from Terry it was always forthcoming. My experience with Terry leads me to believe that comment from Judy, can only be from someone who has some other motive or does not know Terry at a proffesional level - in fact I wonder if her real name is Judy and why there is no last name published. This unfortunate action has caused me to become very cautious about attempting to recruit any person who is involved in any other home based business.. I need my Melaleuca income and will continue to work the business, but with a lot more caution. Does the punishment fit the crime??? (if there was one) I feel that she should have been reprimanded for a what appears to be a minor policy transgretion - not fired!! as if she was so bad why would Melaleuca want her back in any capacity. In future I will be very careful not to exceed the speed limit by 2MPH in Idaho, in case I get imprisoned for Life

ex marketingdirector February 6, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Ed Bestoso are you serious, you stood in front of Convention with your past admittance of doing a insurance deal while you were a Mela. marketing exec. so its ok to steal people from other "bad" companies according to Mela. but Mela. M. EXEC are not allowed to look or " BE OPEN TO" (beth s. on all roads lead to melaleuca cd) anything else. Right Frank? your running Mela. like the LDS church. Put the FEAR of God in them with their paychecks, its sick

ex marketingdirector February 6, 2011 at 11:14 pm
I would be interested to hear from all the Consultants that Mela, corp. tried to steal from Beauticontrol, Nuskin etc. flying people to down to Florida. The only way McKay and Frank know how to do MLM, consumer direct, direct sales, whatever you want to call it, is to convey how ALL the other companies (just like religions) are BAD and how Mela will SAVE them, they are there for the little guy! REally, why did you Frank stand up in front of us the day before convention saying the same horrible things about Jeff Hill, to the point you wanted exec. walking around thinking he was having an affair. It was too much for Mela. to believe that Harvard Grad. Roger Barnett could create what he has with Shaklee and have a real health and wellness company. I do know this, I am not with Shaklee but when Mela. products have the fillers and artificial colors, dyes, sweetners fats oils, dairy crap in them.. How on earth can you call yourself a wellness company. OH, that's right just focus on the money and putting everyone else down. Their days are numbered, No educated consumer will partner with Melaleuce today in 2011 that can read what these products have in them.

ex marketingdirector February 24, 2011 at 1:33 am
ex marketingdirector: February 6, 2011 at 11:07 pm Ed Bestoso are you serious, you stood in front of Convention with your past admittance of doing a insurance deal while you were a Mela. marketing exec. so its ok to steal people from other “bad” companies according to Mela. but Mela. M. EXEC are not allowed to look or ” BE OPEN TO” (beth s. on all roads lead to melaleuca cd) anything else. Right Frank? your running Mela. like the LDS church. Put the FEAR of God in them with their paychecks, its sick ex marketingdirector: February 6, 2011 at 11:14 pm I would be interested to hear from all the Consultants that Mela, corp. tried to steal from Beauticontrol, Nuskin etc. flying people to down to Florida. The only way McKay and Frank know how to do MLM, consumer direct, direct sales, whatever you want to call it, is to convey how ALL the other companies (just like religions) are BAD and how Mela will SAVE them, they are there for the little guy! REally, why did you Frank stand up in front of us the day before convention saying the same horrible things about Jeff Hill, to the point you wanted exec. walking around thinking he was having an affair. It was too much for Mela. to believe that Harvard Grad. Roger Barnett could create what he has.

George April 8, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Melaleuca is a great company and gives me a reason to stay excited every day. It is sad to see some of the comments people write about the company, but then I realize that those people are just bitter because they gave up on their dreams. People have a tendency to bring others down who are trying to succeed. That's just how it goes. I'm sure there are people out there who think Ghandi was a bad person and could find fault in him too. I feel blessed to be part of Melaleuca and will support the company until the end.

Judith Bonhomme April 11, 2011 at 6:51 pm
I can't believe all these negative comments on Melaleuca, when they have been around for over 25 years helping people get their lives together and taking toxins away from our daily products,,,Now why are the big hitters giving great comments on Melaleuca,,,, because they are there to prove that Melaleuca doesn't take your check away or find a reason to take your check away because you've became a BIG HITTER and they want to keep the money to themselves ,,,,, if you guys take the time to read carefully ,,, it's because Terry GAVE a SAMPLE of MAX products to someone,,, so that DOES go against the policies and procedures,,,, if giving a sample of another product is not promoting another business well I don't know what it is,,,,, when your handing out samples of other company products YOU ARE PROMOTING another business,,,,,also many sale businesses you are NOT allowed to sell products or services from any another business,,,, it's called (Conflict of Interest) Now why would Melaleuca be any different ,,,,, I am proud to be with Melaleuca and nothing or no one will make me change my mind,,,, they are a great company and they DO take care of their distributors,,,,I am happy to see that they don't allow anyone to steal people away from us as we work hard to grow our downlines,,,,, and Judy maybe if you would have taken the products out of your containers before throwing them out to your recycling they would have accepted it,,,, recycling is all about clean papers.cardbaords and emptied and cleaned plastic containers,,,, we are not even allowed to put pizza boxes in our recycling bins,,,and Randy why are they asking for 2 years of commission,,,, because it took them 2 years to carefully study what was going on and the last thing they wanted was to fire Terry,,,, but they had no choice in the matter because they need to protect their honest distributors,,,, I have been with Melaleuca for 4 years now and I have seen over 100s' of MLMs' and I have not yet met any other company that protects their distributors as much as Melaleuca does,,,

ROD COOK April 21, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Wow! Above there is a posting that says the Big M has 114 lawsuits on the Pacer system. Is the Big M trying to beat out Amway? If you have the list of Melaleuca lawsuits on Pacer please come to the MLM Watchdog and use the reporters link to send the list over. Rod Cook http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/Reporters.html

Tim July 2, 2013 at 10:13 pm
I don't understand how this entire thing is any different from any other MLM. I've worked 10 MLMs in 25 years and have found that every single one has some people with no integrity, no morals, people who break the rules, people who skirt the rules, those who make their own rules, good leaders, bad leaders. I hate it when companies bring in a heavy hitter from another company and he brings his downline with him and they proclaim that we went double executive platinum super duper diamond in 14 days! Bull! But they keep doing it. And I'm still pursuing my dream of time freedom. Not every vehicle is for every person. Find your vehicle and if you feel that you need to condemn all the other vehicles out there, then so be it. This is a free country. Speak your mind. If others are influenced by small-mindedness, then I probably don't want them in my business anyways.

Wayne Brown September 15, 2013 at 5:25 am
Has there been a determination in the Dorfman lawsuit?