Terry Dorfman versus Melaleuca lawsuit Max International and Ken Dunn, Melaleuca official response
Melaleuca apologizes to Ted Nuyten, and send an official response on the Terry Dorfman lawsuit post, and many comments.
On December 16 th, 2010 we reported over the Terry Dorfman versus Melaleuca lawsuit, followed by a letter from Melaleuca legal department (You find the post here) demanding to take the business for home.org website down.
 |
|
 |
| Terry Dorfman | Frank Vandersloot – Melaleuca | Ken Dunn – Max Intern |
I received the following email and letter on January 10 th, 2011 :
Mr. Nuyten:
I wanted to follow up and apologize again for the tone of the letter that our Legal Assistant sent to you over the Christmas holiday. As it was explained, that was a form letter that Melaleuca sends out to numerous websites that infringe our copyright, and was not meant to target your entire website. While Melaleuca does defend against copyright infringement, we appreciate very much how you have handled the copyright issue and your quick attention to correcting the problem.
We have noticed a substantial number of comments to your posting about the lawsuit Terry Dorfman has filed against Melaleuca. Many of those postings, in our view, are based upon incorrect information about the case. While we intend to defend the case in court, we cannot simply ignore all of the false information being disseminated about the case. As a result, we are forwarding the attached letter addressing your post regarding the Dorfman lawsuit and the comments from others. We request that you provide a link to this letter at the top of the page located at https://www.businessforhome.
<Michael LaClare – Associate General Counsel – Melaleuca, Inc.
Melaleuca official response
January 10,2011
Dear Mr. Nuyten:
We are writing to provide a few facts that shed light on the meritless nature of Ms. Dorfman's- lawsuit. It is not unusual for plaintiffs to make unsubstantiated statements in a legal complaint against a company. In some cases, a plaintiff may lodge statements for publicity and to leverage what they perceive to be a better bargaining position in the litigation. In Ms. Dorfman's case, she has included many allegations in her complaint that are inaccurate. Other statements upon which she relies are simply untrue. Some of those statements are the very statements highlighted by you on your web posting entitled Terry Dorfman versus Melaleuca Lawsuit, Max International and Ken Dunn.
What the Evidence Will Ultimately Show
Once all the relevant evidence is brought forward in the lawsuit, it will be clear that Ms. Dorfman freely admitted that she personally participated in helping a Max distributor solicit and attempt to enroll other Melaleuca Marketing Executives. This is in direct violation of Melaleuca's written policy and grounds for termination, which the policy makes very clear. Ms. Dorfman did this while she was a Melalecua Marketing Executive. She also acknowledged willfully violating other policies. And her personal admissions were substantiated by multiple other sources.
In October 2009, Melaleuca gave Ms. Dorfman and other Marketing Executives the opportunity to receive amnesty for any prior violations of their non-solicitation obligations so long as they disclosed any such violations in full on an amnesty card that was provided. As Ms. Dorfman acknowledged in her complaint at paragraphs 50-52, she voluntarily completed the amnesty card.
It is not true, however, that Melaleuca used any information that Ms. Dorfman disclosed on her amnesty card as a basis for her termination. Instead, additional information later came to light that made clear that Ms. Dorfman had failed to disclose substantial prior violations of her nonsolicitation agreement. She omitted material facts about her involvement with and knowledge of the illegal raiding activities of Max International and its Associates (which resulted in the entry of a preliminary injunction against Max).
Moreover, many of Ms. Dorfman's other complaint allegations contain exaggerated and provocative descriptions of statements that paint a very inaccurate picture substantially different from what Mr. VanderSloot actually did and said.
Transcript Showing What Mr. VanderSloot Actually Said
In her lawsuit, Terry Dorfman refers to statements made by Frank VanderSloot on August 12, 2010, to a group of Melaleuca business leaders. She says that several of Mr. VanderSloot's statements were untruthful and defamatory. Below is an exact transcript of all statements by Mr. VanderSloot regarding Ms. Dorfman at the August 2010 meeting. This transcript was filed with the Utah federal district court:
[Frank VanderSloot]: There was a fifth Marketing … er a fifth Executive Director, actually Executive Director VI, whose marketing agreement with Melaleuca was terminated just this last week. And I'm sad to announce that. But it was Executive Director VI, Terry Dorfman. President's Club winner last year. A candidate for President's Club this year. Really close contender! She'd been offered the amnesty agreement. She'd filled out an amnesty agreement. Said a few things. Didn't tell us the whole story! Turns out, she was part of this whole Max International thing from the beginning. She decided not to go with them. But she had friends who had. And she didn't tell us that, Folks, that this was going on! She could have raised her hand and come forward and we could have-and all these people's lives would be much better. She helped arrange travel for Max to bring in Melaleuca Marketing Executives to meet with Max Executives. Why she did this (she said it was to help out her sister who wasn't doing-who had signed up with Max.) But you can't do that! You can't help somebody
else recruit Melaleuca people, even if you haven't decided to sign up yourself. There was a whole bunch-a whole bunch more to this story. Agonizing decision! But her agreement with Melaleuca has now been terminated. She was making over $300,000 a year. It baffles me why someone would mess around with that kind of stuff. And we want you-we want-I'm telling you about this because, I don't want to do this anymore. I'm just going to plead with you. Don't put us in this situation! Do you understand? We cannot have any tolerance for this, whatsoever.
Poor Terry Dorfman owes Melaleuca $600,000. Because in the Policy it says you resign at the time-it's your resignation at the time you violate. Any money you're paid past the violation, you have to pay back. It's really, really clear. We anticipate the courts will enforce that. And we're going to give whatever we collect from that back to the Marketing Executives who were damaged from this whole endeavor.
Melaleuca will protect your business from being raided, cut and dry. Now, I spent way too much time on that, but I don't want to terminate anybody else, ok? So, now, let's talk about something else that's fun to talk about.
By comparing the actual transcript to the complaint allegations, you can see that Ms. Dorfman includes numerous allegations that are simply not accurate. For instance, in paragraph 84 of the complaint, with reference to the August 12 Leadership Session, Ms. Dorfman alleges as follows:
Vandersloot provided the attendees with details about Ms. Dorfman's alleged contract violations by announcing … that Ms. Dorfman was responsible for [her sister] Barb Dorfman becoming a distributor at Max. A review of the transcript reveals that Mr. VanderSloot never made any such statement. In fact, a careful reader will note several serious discrepancies between what Ms. Dorfman claims and what Mr. VanderSloot really said.
We suggest that those interested compare what Mr. VanderSloot actually said with what Ms. Dorfman claims he said in her lawsuit. One could then make reasonable assumptions as to the accuracy or truthfulness of the rest of Ms. Dorfman's claims.
Lawsuits are never enjoyable. But there is at least one huge positive result. The truth comes out in the end. We encourage you to wait until you hear all of the facts before forming opinions on the fairness of both Melaleuca's policies and its enforcement of those policies. As the facts surrounding this case are revealed, you will also be able to understand why Melaleuca's handling of Ms. Dorfman's situation was very fair, indeed.
Melaeluca's Stellar Track Record
Melaleuca grew by over $81 million in 2010 alone-that represents a 9.9% increase in sales over the previous year. The reason Melaleuca seems to be growing faster than almost any other direct selling company is not only because of its great products, but also because its Marketing Executives trust the company and know that the company will treat them fairly and protect them from being raided by unscrupulous persons or companies. Melaleuca has been in business for 25 years and continues to have a wonderful and unblemished reputation. It has been my experience that only its competitors and those who are no longer qualified to be members ever try to damage Melaleuca's reputation. Melaleuca will, of course, vigilantly defend its great reputation and proud history with the truth. And, as Mr. VanderSloot has always said, the truth is good enough.
Melaleuca's CEO, Frank VanderSloot, has been leading Melaleuca on a very successful journey for the past 25 years. That success speaks volumes about Mr. VanderSloot's character and dedication to fairness and his entire mission of enhancing the lives of others. Hundreds of thousands of Marketing Executives have joined Mr. VanderSloot in fulfilling the company's mission of enhancing lives. Both Mr. VanderSloot and Melaleuca have been given countless awards over the years by various organizations, including the Better Business Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, various civic organizations, universities, USA Today, NASDAQ, Ernst
& Young and others, for the company's ethics, friendly business environment and business methods. Anyone interested in investigating those awards should visit the website www.melaleucaawards.com.
Sincerely,
Michael LaClare Associate General Counsel
[scribd id=46654299 key=key-1sw6isjllu3vb8hd4dxn mode=list]
Login with Google
Melaleuca didn’t have to answer this. They are an honest company from the looks of that response. This is the case of a rogue IR going bad.
I must say I stand proud and tall and feel honored to have Natalie and Rick Foeller as our closest friends. While Terry is not a close friend, she is still a friend and more than that she is a business woman that I respect. Natalie and I have been friends for 24 years ? long before Melaleuca and Max. In fact ? long before husbands and kids. Our business was a very small part of our relationship. Because of our long friendship, Natalie invited my husband and me to come to a Wine and Cheese Party to hear about Max International. Because of that, we are mentioned in Terry?s lawsuit and identified as one of the reasons she was terminated. Nelson also told Ms. Dorfman that she was terminated for the following reasons: ?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.
I remember that night very clearly because it is the evening we decided to go to Max International. I remember with Terry it was an easy decision, her head and her heart were with Melaleuca. She said she could never jeopardize her large business and was teasing Ken that he really needed to consider Melaleuca.
Here?s what I struggle with ? How could Melaleuca ever consider that Terry was disloyal?? Look at the past issues of Leadership In Action Magazine – how could Terry build one of the fastest growing and biggest businesses in Canada if she was disloyal to Melaleuca? It is my opinion that Melaleuca was disloyal to Terry. On one hand how sad that Melaleuca lost such a strong committed business woman, but on the other hand I guess the bottom line for Frank Vander Sloot and Melaleuca is not loyalty to its leaders, but rather loyalty to the almighty dollar. Melaleuca continues to reap the tremendous financial benefits that Terry brought to that company while no longer paying her. Shame on you Frank.
http://www.pacer.gov ? go and have a look at the number of lawsuits Melaleuca has on file. It blew me away. It is about time that Melaleuca ?was taken to court? ? in this age of the internet, blogs, Facebook ? companies like Melaleuca can no longer hide how they do business.
Terry has my complete and 100% support and I hope that all of you reading this blog can demonstate your support. New prospects need to be aware of policies and procedures and choose companies that are not so penal in their behavior. There is no rationale that supports Terry losing a business when she was completely loyal and gave herself totally to this company!
I have commented on both past links. It’s very–no, extremely–interesting that this time I’m third in line. The excitement seems to have been lost in this case, so people go somewhere else.
From the beginning my hope was that Frank would re-evaluate Melaleuca’s decision. My hope was he’d been in the wrong. Now I’m not so sure. Is anybody else sure he’s on the wrong? Based on the trascription of the Aug, 12 meeting, it looks things are not as clear as I thought.
Unfortunately court battles are not won by the party who is right, but by the one who presents it right in the eyes of the jury.
Last Saturday I attended the January Launch. It was not as big as some I’ve attended in the past. But I noticed a couple of people I’d not seen for a long time; maybe a couple of years.
One was, supposedly, wrongly terminated after an IME in his hierarchy didn’t want to attend an invitation to see something else, and instead reported him to the company. (Let’s call this guy person A) Interestingly he was one of three people terminated around the same time. One of the other two was the very person who introduced me to Melaleuca. The stories my friend told me, painted Melaleuca as an ogre, much worse than Shreck.
Supposedly there would be lawsuits. Melaleuca would pay dearly for its wrongdoings.
Person A joined a company I was attracted to for a specific product. I heard a conference where this person appeared to be on the rise on this new company. But low and behold the product didn’t pan out and here this person is starting out in Melaleuca at the very bottom again. It wont be long before he’ll be featured as a rising star; he was part of the presidential trip just before being terminated!!!!! In fact of the three people terminated he was probably the one making the most money. He has humbled himself and admitted he was wrong; my friend has never admitted. And I know he did some things wrong.
The other person I saw at the Lauch (let’s call this person B) was also featured as a very-rapidly rising start. It seems to me I remember one check for over $16K in only a few months after starting.
In both cases, the opinions I hear from people close to these two persons are not very encouraging.
I still hope Frank is in the wrong and Ms Dorfman is in the right. But from what I’ve seen in the trascription, it seems I will not like the outcome.
Sorry to bother you Kathy. How do you use Pacer? I click on the link and enter Melaleuca on the search field and nothing came out. I’ll appreciate it.
Ted,
I appreciate your follow-up with this issue and I do hope that no matter the outcome, it gets reported with the same integrity that you have demonstrated within the pages of this publication.
Kudos to you, my friend. Your service to the industry and bringing us the facts without bias is of the highest order. Stay the course…
Best Regards,
Chris McCargar
Let me preface by saying I love this industry.
What I can not figure out is why a company ever sues any rep (self employed-self motivated-the reason you wanted them in the first place) for any reason other then shady or misleading business practices to the consumer.
If the rep thinks that the grass is greener let them go. Many of them came from some other MLM to you and you thought that was okay at the time they joined your company.
Where does most recruiting happen (with folks already in the industry)
In this case Terri wasn’t even trying to go to another company.
The best thing you can do is to bury the hachet and see if you can get her back into the fold.
The longer this goes on the worse (big bad company) looks.
Also, another black eye for the whole industry.
I can?t believe the crap this company is writing! Natalie Foeller, Laraine Agren,and the Miles all resigned from Melaleuca. Then they were all then served with lawsuits. For what? Raiding? Well, that one sure hasn?t been proven yet, not in any one of those cases!
After Natalie resigned she never received her last check for the month that she was working for them. But did you know that most of us never received our last checks? We worked for our checks, brought them in those customers, and they held or cancelled our checks. In our case, they overnighted the check to our home, and then cancelled it later that day. WOW….Intimidation. Control.
Frank VanderSloot sent out a letter dated August 22, 2009, in which he wrote, ?Therefore we do not allow any products to be sold through this organization by anyone other than Melaleuca. In other words, a Marketing Executives may not use his/her Melaleuca organization to sell other services such as insurance, real estate, or other investments.?
I wrote to their attorneys to clarify: ?When does one of our clients from another business venture we then enroll as a Marketing Executive, become your customer and leave us as a client? When do our family members and closest of friends leave our personal relationship and become only your customer? Are you saying that we can?t work with any of these people that were first our clients in any other business venture? Does that mean when we have a loan client, personal friend, or a family member that we enroll as a Melaleuca Customer that our previous relationship with them ceases? If a Melaleuca Customer comes to us for a loan, we have to turn them down because they are first and foremost your Customer??
This was their response….?I take it that you do not deny recruiting Melaleuca Marketing Executives to another business; rather, you think that it is unfair to prohibit such recruiting.?
We were told that you could not go into any other business venture with any other Marketing Executive. That means that you can?t even open up a coffee shop with a family member or your best friend if you brought them into Melaleuca.
And you think you are an Independent Distributor? Own your own business? Oh brother! All I can say is if you are a Distributor with them, be very careful who you turn over to them. Once in, can?t get out! Now they OWN you.
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
This is SHOCKING.. Melaleuca would’ve proven their point with at worst a one(1) month’s pay penalty, but to terminate Terry completely!? I’m assuming that her recount of events are true (trying to recruit the Max guys over several meetings – I would’ve they’re hitters!), and turning on her sister to a product not offered by Melaleuca? Big deal – although technically against some policy everyone knows she wasn’t trying to do anything harmful to her Mela biz.. For that – slam her for a month’s $$, or even two months which would surely be felt ($30K would wake up anyone to be more aware of what’s happening around you). Now she’s lost millions of dollars – generational wealth that has been preached and preached.. This is very sad and again, assuming her story is accurate, sounds like a situation that got blown way out of proportion.. This is a hard one – I wish Terry could be back in her biz and doing what she obviously knew how to do so well, but that probably would never happen after all this.. I also find myself torn because for Melaleuca’s / Frank’s / MaCay’s credibility they HAVE to win this lawsuit, otherwise they will have knocked the an awesome reputation down so many pegs… These two parties should get back together and discuss things – get ELC involved and get it resolved. If Terry DID do more than the honest referral of her sister then she’ll lose and that will be that. If not, Melaleuca needs to be the bigger “man” and show some compassion for someone that did so well for you.
Hi Ted,
Some things runble on and this looks as is it will roll for a long time yet. Wheter or not Melaleuca win, and I sincerely hope not, as I believe they have acted in a wholly unethical manner and on the flimsiest of excuses, the publiity surrounding this whole sad affair should at the very least put everyone on their guard and encourage them to read the ‘small print’ before comitting their efforts, energy and enthusiasm into building an organisation or even a customer base. Only then will it become apparent just how easy it is for some of these companies to steal your business and often in the most trivial of circumstances.
In the worst of these contracts the term ‘Independent’ should be removed alltogether. I am not implying that every Networking company is or should be tarred with the same brush but during my sixteen years in this amazing industry frankly the antics of some gives the entire industry a bad name.
John
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
Well Well Well
It happens again and again.
I agree very strongly with Cheryl Alimena. I was with Mela for 10 years and was terminated. Mela does what Mela wants to do for the better of Mela. They don’t care that you just put braces on your childs teeth and now can’t pay for them after working the business for 10 years, because they canned your butt.
Think about this for a minute. We had a woman in our business who was inactive for 5 months, and who’s husband enrolled with my personal enroller (can you believe it. My own enroller taking people out of my business). Well this husband went on to enroll this lady who went on to build one of Melaleuca’s largest teams comprised off all moms. Doesn’t the policies say only one business per household or something? And to make matters worse the woman who was inactive for 5 months placed an order on her account in the 6th month re-activating her position within our organization! We were unaware of the husbands involvement, and were sure aware of this team comprised of moms because the were rocketing to the top of compensation plan. When we actually discovered all this (6mths later) and had documents to prove everything, you know what the response was when we approached the company’s legal department (a guy named Ken was at the helm)…..
It’s too late. There are too many relationships built! If you want the woman, who accidentally placed her order on the wrong account, back into your organization we can do that. But not the 1000’s who are there now.
So in their policies it states that if someone places an order within 6mths of inactivity (this was back in late 2000 I think) their account is reactivated in your organization. If they are out for 6mths they can re-enroll with whom ever they like. But the husband and wife had two separate accounts at the same time! Even the woman in our business understood the serious error and wrote to Mela to have it corrected, and they did nothing!
I’ve lost out of millions of commissions because of that issue!
Mela Does What Mela Wants…….
Good for you Terry…..you go girl!
Gerry Schroeder
The issues are becoming so narrow when we really need to all keep in mind, the big picture here. 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?
I agree
Attorney LaClare spins Melaleuca’s unconscionable termination of Dorfman into an endorsement of Vandersloot’s blatant mockery of the American Free Enterprise system. Vandersloot’s abuse of protections afforded independent contractors under Federal law is outrageous. If this MLM monster actually believes ‘the truth is good enough’ then respond to Dorfman’s facts-and-evidence her attorney will document for the Utah judge and jury.
1. WHY did Vandersloot choose only to terminate Dorfman and NOT her enroller Mike Commisso who flew with her to Utah when they attempted together to enlist Ken Dunn into Melaleuca? (Was it beacause Dorfman is a single Jewish woman – and vulnerable?)
2. WHY did Vandersloot showcase his cold-blooded termination of Dorfman before 1,500 peers at the Salt Lake ELC if it wasn’t to strike fear and intimidation on the rest of Melaleuca’s restless leaders.
3. Justify Melaleuca’s despicable 5-hour Kangaroo Court interrogation of Dorfman by Vandersloot and 3 senior management other than gang-rape of this single innocent woman from a business ethics perspective?
4. Deny Melaleuca’s Kangaroo Court was a corporate ‘set-up’ of Dorfman so Vandersloot could slime her 6 days later at the ELC to reinforce Melaleuca’s economic terrorism policies against its 1,500 production leaders?
5. Deny Vandersloot accused Dorfman of being more loyal to her friends than to Melaleuca for refusing to snitch on Directors who rejected his Gulag for safer opportunities. Ratting out friends is NOT the American way Frank!
6. Dorfman’s cooperation with Melaleuca’s unprecedented Amnesty Card witch-hunt was a violation of her integrity and unblemnished President’s Club and $2-million Club honors. If Vandersloot’s subsequent bait-and-switch isn’t the ultimate double-cross, then what is?
7. Ethical MLM’s allow independent contractors to sell or transfer their business after years of hard work. Justify’s Melaleuca’s published Policy 20 that grants Vandersloot sole ‘legal right’ to steal Dorfman’s liviehood totalling 4,367 customers for ‘corporate protection’. Protection from whom?
8. Justify confiscating Dorfman’s accumulated residuals from 8-years of hard work THEN demanding she repay $677,177 in earned commissions off the millions in sales HER business previously generated for Melaleuca?
9. Ethical MLM’s pay commission checks on the previous month’s sales. Vandersloot STOPS payment on Dorfman’s $33,774 deposited commission for July 2010 before telling her two days later ‘the company is opening an investigation’ into HER business activities. A classic case study in Melaleuca ‘integrity’!
10. Dorfman will prove in court that she was never registered nor compensated by MAX International. So what specific ‘policy violation’ did Melaleuca convict Dorfman on to justify stealing her $380,000 residual annual income and pocketing all future revenues generated from HER 4,367 customers?
11. Deny Melaleuca is leveraging Dorfman’s stolen income to finance its own grubby lawyers to defend this sales superstar’s precedent-setting legal case against Vandersloot.
12. All Roads Lead to Melaleuca!! Prove that phony b/s for the Utah judge and jury while defending Policy20.
13. Webster’s definition of ‘slavery’? Compare it with Melaleuca’s Policy 20 for ‘independent marketing executives’!
14. ‘Enhancing The Lives Of Those We Touch By Helping PeopleReach Their GOALS’! How’s that b/s working out for Terry Dorfman after 8 years of unblemished Melaleuca committment?
WHY would this hard-working dedicated woman consider any other MLM after single-handedly building herself financial security with her $33,774/month Melaleuca residual income? She wouldn’t! And she didn’t! She was unfairly victimized by Vandersloot because she’s single, a woman – and easy prey to his controlling manic obsession.
The only business mistake Dorfman made was believing Melaleuca was an MLM of ethical integrity and Vandersloot an honest owner.
Thank God we live in America and justice will prevail. Vandersloot’s fear-and-smear operation uses-&-abuses the vulnerable like Terry Dorfman. Does this despicable Nazi believe he can get off brutalizing this innocent gal — without fallout from every self-respecting woman left at Melaleuca?
Truly believe he can slander Dorfman’s integrity and spectacular Melaleuca success with his Gestapo tactics?
Believe he can claw-back Dorfman’s $677,177 earned commissions and annihilate her residual income after 8 years of total dedication?
Really?
Fortunately, gender discrimination and character assassination will be adjudicated in Federal Court- not Idaho Falls.
Unfortunately, none of us will get a seat in Dorfman’s Utah courtroom. The gallery will be standing-room-only with reporters from America’s national media. Melaleuca’s ‘truth’ will soon become public.
Vandersloot’s atrocious mistreatment of Dorfman is about to convert her malicious termination into a cause celebre for used-and-abused women in the workplace. Read her lawsuit!
Stay tuned for the headlines across Cable-TV and online news media on this sordid management’s abusive, repulsive and discriminatory business practises.
What was the outcome of this lawsuit?