The Free Business For Home App: Direct Selling News, Company Analysis and Market Data

Download for free:

Terry Dorfman versus Melaleuca Lawsuit, Max International and Ken Dunn

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

Comments (86)

  1. This is disgusting. All these MLM companies and their lawsuits against distributors MUST stop. Monavie is another one… these companies have a lot of money – and they use the legal system to BULLY people who don’t fall in line… I understand if someone violates policy and procedure that it can be grounds for termination… but companies should have clear proof.. and worse case scenario terminate distributorship. I hear Melaleuca and Monavie are suing quite a number of former distributors. This is malicious, it’s bullying and it’s wrong! I would avoid these companies and tell everyone you know to avoid them.

  2. I wish Terry Dorfman well in her suit against a known “Predator” in network marketing. It’s high time “Independent” distributors banded together to stem the tide of one-sided Distributor Agreements and protected the rights of those who “represent” network marketing companies around the globe. I’ve invested 40 years in my network. Companies like Melaleuca should be summarily blackballed from any participation in the industry.

  3. This is the reason why I despise/hate the MLM industry. They basically stole her business. You are an independent representative. This is no different than working a job in corporate. So she doesn’t have the right to speak with individuals from Max? Get real. Don’t be surprised if her “so called” sponsor had anything to do with this. This is typical in MLM. I am believing that this lady will received the full $5.1 million.

  4. This is so disheartening when business owners (mlm or otherwise) do such devious work. It happens everywhere in the world. It is so sad,that are they not thinking how their business name and personal names are affected from this also by doing this to Terry Dorfman? Thank goodness Terry had the insight to track everything, even though the contract specifically states she can do other business in networking arena. Well,this company can kiss their distributors goodbye after all this mess hit the internet waves. They will be panicking in thought, “Will I be next? Why grow my business only to loose it one way or another with these business guys at the gate?” This is why integrity is such a big factor in joining any company, Theresa, whether it is mlm or not. One has to do their homework on the company, business owners and rules and regulation, in any industry. Good luck Terry, this at least seems to be pretty cut and dry, going to court. Looks like Terry will win this one, hands down.

  5. I hope this lady wins her lawsuit. Melaleuca is obviously out for blood. I have been approached numerous times by this company and Monavie, and turned them both down every time. I’m so turned off at this point that I would never join either one.

  6. why judge and condemn Melaleuca based on a testimony from the plaintif? This is only one side of the story of course… i wouldn’t jump to conclusions without having heared Melaleuca’s response. Just wouldnt be fair. Personally I would also get suspicious when the kid sister of a leader in my team would join another company and soon after that other people from her team would start joining her. This is what happens everywhere when people change company and dot want to loose their current income. I am not saying Melaleuca is right, but I would want my company to protect my business too when such things occur. I think the final judgement can only be made when Melaleuca can come forward with testimonies of other distributors that have been approached by plaintif to switch company. Maybe there are no such testimonies, but lets wait for Melaleuca’s response. And not judge before that.

  7. Even if she was guilty, and I don’t believe she is, Melaleuca and Vandersloot were way out of line in making the derogatory remarks at the meeting. Terry made a lot of money for them, you never bite the hand that feeds you.

  8. Why all these references to Melaleuca as an MLM or network marketing company? Doesn’t everyone KNOW that it isn’t MLM? Just because it “walks like a duck and talks like a duck” (and acts like a duck)?

    Only in America! *lol*

  9. When people join a company without reading the agreements they make and they assume they can go out and build many businesses at the same time there needs to be someone around to tell them about things like this. If a company wants to sell me on coming to work for them then I make sure I own my customer base and can not have my contract cancelled for things like this.

    They want me they can write up a seperate contract because I’m worth it and no way I make a rookie mistake like this lady did. I find it disgusting and crooked of companies to do business this way and I would never join Mel. for this reason ifg they have such clauses in their agreement and I know many who would feel the same. This is the death of their company if word gets out and I am sure that now it has.

    Doesn’t matter if she was looking at joining another company and or if she had plans to leave them. They should be able to compete in the market with other companies for reps or risk losing their sales forces like all the rest of the industry. This practice of stealing downlines is as unethical as cross recruiting and is just plain bad business. Who would dare to risk their future by joining them after all this has happened. Did the owner of the company have a stroke and start thinking this way because it is evidence of some major stinking thinking for sure. Might as well give the company away if your not trusting in your people to remain loyal to you.

    This is why the MLM industry has a black eye. All companies should band together to force all companies to adopt certain standards of ethics and require all distributors to pass a test on business ethics so that they keep out the rif raf. Insurance licenses are necessary for selling insurance perhaps a license will oneday be necessary to start a MLM business. This type of nonsense will lead to it if the government has it’s way. Self police or risk having it done to you by the government.

  10. Sad to see another large corporation using these tactics to bully their Distributors into submission. I suspect there was also the added attraction of being able to add her commissions to the Corporate coffers. As it appears the terms ‘unfair contract’ and ‘Independent contractor’ have yet to be explained to this Company, along with some other notable organisation who also feel they have the right to hold Distributors contracturaly responsible for the actions of their families, I hope the Court sends a clear message to these corporate shyloks and awards $10.000.000.00 rather than just five.
    It really is about time we began to shine the light of publicity on these outfits, lets have more of it for the long term benefit of both the Industry and Distributors.

  11. …and that’s why people always ask “is this a pyramid.” Sounds like one to me especially when you’re recruited the most common language is “you’re building your business” how is it so? When you have someone at the “Top” dictating to whom you can meet, eat and talk with regarding business. That’s why I am leaving MLM aka Network Marketing.

  12. Great to see this information being published and moron dinosaurs like Vandersloot being sued. The days of these types of MLM companies behaving like this are numbered. Viva Distributor Rights. Companies actions need to match their mission statements. The number one reason that I have had thousands join my Rain Nutrition business in a few months is because they have set the new standard in the industry by presenting every distributor with a “Distributor Bill of Rights” that recognises distributors own their business, that they can’t change the pay plan and that they are equally as important as the company….THis is the future for all companies… I am happy to send a copy to anyone interested if you contact me at [email protected] with your details.

  13. I am currently a happy Melaleuca ME. There are always two sides to every coin and not everything posted above is conclusive. Mela is great company. If you’ve had a bad experience most likely you’ve been with the wrong team. Find out what team is cranking it at http://www.5kwinners.com

    Peace to all,

    Josh LIfford
    “We close your sales”

  14. If this is how it went down, and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time for Melaleuca, I wish Terry Dorfman all the best. This kind of policy is so antiquated, and why in the world should someone in a family not be allowed to start shopping from another company? Really? I sometimes think my company is a little lenient the other way – not terminating people who are ‘breaking the rules’. Good luck Terry!

  15. Mr Ken Dunn have been terminated by Max International as of january 2010 do to unethic behavior and compromising company rules and norms of conduct, he was being called a couple of times about such a behavior and din`t respond to company efforts of termination of such a unethic conduct, i have been in the Max International convention of last October in Salt Lake City and everybody was happy he was terminated, Max do have a very unique and particular line of products who do self by themself, we do no need this kind of people making bad name for the company even if they are well know marketers.
    The board of directors of the company is very happy about the termination even if Mr Dunn took close to 10,000 members in his termination run. People who follow such kind of people don`t deserved to be in such a good company like Max International is.
    On the other hand i will be very happy if Ms Dorfman win the case from Mr Vandersloot Melaleuca, i always have look to Melaleuca like a small copy of Amway, and this case confirm mine suspicious, Amway have always treated distributors like they owned them and have terrorized with letters, lawyers and disfamatory practices to anyone not following they dictatorship, this is the case here and this is one of the reasons Amway have such a bad reputacion and fame in the USA.
    Mr Vandersloot, your company is built by the efforts of thousand of distributors, not by yourself, this case is gonna cost you thousand of distributors and a lot of money, i`ll hope you (and others in your position) learn the lesson.

  16. My opinion is Melaleuca is one of the best companies when it comes to value for the dollar. Frank has done a good job.
    But based solely on the data of the lawsuit described here I hope Ms. Dorfman wins the suit. In the US we have this system that “you’re innocent till proven guilty”. If Ms. Dorfman is guilty, Melaleuca’s people didn’t spend enough time to prove it; deciding to terminate her is pure bullying. Not good. No, not good at all.
    Everyday all kinds of people leave all kinds of companies. If Ms. Dorfman would have wanted to go to Max, she would have done long ago. People who succeed in any type of business don’t take long time to make decisions. I love doing business as Melaleuca’s IME, and sure hope Frank will reconsider this decision.

  17. First of all, I want to thank Ted for putting this blog site together. There is an incredible amount of data here.

    Secondly to Luis Arteaga. My friend you have no idea what you are talking about. You were not even in the company then. Everything you have said there is lie and mistruths. You have just gotten yourself into something way more then you want. Your comments are lies, mistruths and by writing them you are engaging in Slander and defamation. I am currently suing Max for 20,000,000 and will definitely be adding your comments to the case. As we have proved that Max corp officers have been involved in a surreptitious smear campaign and your comments are identical from what came from corp officers at Max.

    also you need to know that I have received many many calls from max leaders who all have said they miss me and wish I was back. Even Alan Sickman, the company’s top earner now has called me and said the same.

    The fact that you said I took 10,000 people with me is crazy. there wouldnt even be that many people actually working in the entire company. If I did that Max would have gone out of business.

    Please send me the names and numbers of 1 person that told you that they are glad i am gone.

    as for as your board of directors comments. it has already been proven that the head of that board has committed purjury in court, so how can we take anything he say’s with any merit at all.

    so you are aware, i had a contract with Max that told me exactly what I had to do. It says “Ken Dunn is to solicit Tier 1 and Tier 2 leaders in network marketing from all of his contacts” and further “Max International will provide bridge financing that will allow these leaders to transition on a case by case basis”.

    there are a whole bunch of leaders in max that were paid and the money all came from the company.

    Max would routinely wire the money to my account and have me pay the leaders so that they could keep it at arms length and make it look like they were not involve but in reality they made me sign a contract that dictated this behavior on my part. Now they are trying desperately to make it look like they had nothing to do with it and that I am the bad guy.

    If you want the real facts, just go to the Salt Lake public court records and get a copy of the 40 page complaint I laid against max, it is all in there. Even the details of the names of all the top leaders who got paid. Even your upline got paid Luis.

    My friend you have made a huge error by making these mistakes.

    I think that I have some valuable insights for this article. I was wrongfully terminated. This matter is still before the courts in Utah. I wanted to respond to set the record straight. Max International was started in 2007, when I was asked to come in and become the Master Distributor. My relationship with Max was defined in a special contract that superceeded the Policies and Procedures. That being said, as Master Distributor, I had a responsibility to set the example of how a distributor should perform. I exceeded all of my commitments to the company. I always lead every contest and category while I was there. I was the company’s top income earner the entire time I was there, not because i was at the top of the tree, but because I brought more leaders then anyone else and helped those people to make money.

    In the past 7 months there have been many rumors why I was terminated and many lies told about that. Many of the lies can be traced back to origins inside the company, as they created the spin to cover the actions. I don’t mind saying this as this point can & will be proven when the ensuing legal action makes it to Judge and Jury in Utah court.

    Recently it has come to my attention that some networkers, who will remain nameless at this point have been opening spreading rumours such as: 80% of my paycheck was given to me, I did not actually build the business there, that I caused the lawsuit that is still going on between Max and Melalueca, that I was terminated because of unethical behaviour, that I was paying people, etc.

    I can’t wait to have my day in court. Everything stated above is a complete and utter lie.

    The termination letter that was signed by CEO Peter Nordberg said that I was terminated for breaching policies and for selling a book that I wrote in 2008 called “From Here to Having it All”. I will show in court that I had permission from the owners to sell this book. The main owner Steven K Scott even endorsed the book and wrote an endorsement on the back cover. Ironically, I wrote and published the book to raise money for research into the Disease that killed my father in 2006, Lu Gherig’s Disease.

    This book has received International Feedback and sold thousands of copies. The biggest teams in Max and field leaders openly endorsed the book and gave copies away to their downlines. The largest team in the company, based in Dallas Texas gave hundreds of copies to their people.

    The book was even written to endorse Max, the owners of the company and our business. It was free publicity for Max.

    So if everyone loved it, and every cent of the profits went to charity, why was I terminated for it. I can’t wait til Max corporate officers get a chance to explain that in court. Especially after Steven K Scott (owner) and Craig Case (CEO at the time) will give evidence that they gave me permission in Steve’s office to sell my tools in a private meeting on December 26th, 2006.

    Also, there have been many rumours that I was terminated for P&P breaches that caused the Melalueca Vs. Max Lawsuit. Well that was NEVER mentioned in any documents that I ever received, inspite of the fact that people told Max Top leaders this behind close doors where these leaders were even directed to pass that info onto their downlines.

    I hoped that I would never have to be public like this but I have no choice but to openly talk as my reputation has been damaged by the actions of people who have been running around telling blatent lies.

    you know the old saying, “Time either promotes you or exposes you!”

    One of the biggest problems is that I could not get along with the CEO. In September of 2009, he told me to go home and stop building the business or I would be terminated. Peter Nordberg, Mike Larkins & Joe Voyticky told me on several occasions that my reputation was getting too strong and that I needed to back off. Mike Larkins (President) told me that I would be successful because the reputation of Max would grow and that field leaders should not be profiled higher then the company. I tried to explain that in our industry, the top Professionals will always be profiled by the Profession and that was great for the company that they were associated with. At the time I was speaking at More Heart Than Talent in Dallas Texas, a great network Marketing event ran by Jeffrey Combs and the MLM Mastermind in Houston Texas. I love to speak at these events as it is a chance to give back to the profession and at the same to raise money for Lu Gherig’s disease research. They actually implied that I needed to stop doing these engagements immediately as it was bad for the company and that some top leaders in Max were complaining. I still have never been told who those “top leaders” were.

    Also, I created a generic mlm training website in 2007 called http://www.secretsofsimplity.com and have been given lots of great compliments about that. These same men also told me that it was in my best interest and the best interest of the company for the site to come down.

    All of the lies about my termination need to stop right now. I am a Professional Network Marketer. Since my termination, I have joined a new company and in my 6th month am earning as much as I was earning in my 6th month at Max. Guess that quashes the rumours that I dont know how to build the business and my Max business was built for me. I never wanted to be so open about these matters because I feel for the many max distrbutors that I had a chance to help there. There are many incredible leaders that there i have a ton of respect for like: The Unclebucks and my dear friends at MaxChampions team, Alan Sickman, Mike Lebrun, George and Tina Reninger, Bill Greenman, Dale & Robin Peake, Carl Stanitzky and many others. It saddens me that so many people have been told lies and have been led to believe that I am not a good person. I would love to speak to any of these people.

    It angers me that less then 4 months after they terminated me (last month over $120,000), they sold my position to Alan Sickman for a 7 figure check. Is it right that a company terminates the top income earner and recruiter and sells the position to a leader in the downline while the entire matter is still below the courts?

    Back in March I settle with Max for a couple of hundred thousand dollars because I didn’t want the people in the company to be dragged through this stuff. I settle for a fraction of what I was earning because Joe Voyticky told me that is all the company could afford. 4 months later the sued me for “breaching our settlement agreement” because they say I tried to recruit Clancy Ahlen. Wonder what Clancy has to say about that?

    I have not said anything here that is not already public record in Utah courts. I am only posting this response in an effort to clear my reputation and stop the people that are actually spreading these lies right now.

    I love the Network Marketing Profession more then ever before. I am sure that the records will be set straight in the near future and I am very excited to finally have my day in Utah court in front of a Judge and Jury. I look forward to hearing the sworn testimony of the many many Max related people that will be brought to give evidence. I do want to apologies upfront for the many Max Leaders that I will be calling to give evidence on my support to them and the direct impact that my support gave to them. In fact, Leaders of the top team in Max will give evidence in court that after a January 2008 training I gave them (at their request) their business exploded because they put into action the training that I gave them. I apologies only because it will be distracting to be involved in something like that. It would be so much easier if the Corporate officers at Max would just settle this matter with me once and for all.

    I am more then happy to speak openly with anyone who had the guts to call me about the stuff that they have been telling to others. My cell number is 905-447-6140.

  18. Hi there Mr Dunn, like John Deighton said, glad to hear from you the other side of the story, like you manifest in your write, i did enjoy Max after you already were away from the company and being honest and can not say that i know the problem first hand, well is true that comments about you and your work in the company still being heard thru the grapevines and those comments are the ones i wrote about here. I did also heard that you took with you several thousand reps when you did leave the company and somebody said a cifer close to 3,000, another one 10,000, the true is (i believe) that saying a exactly cifer is almost imposible even for yourself, probably nobody will never know how much people did follow you or the leaders in the team that you have created, well is true that you do have loyal people at your person that did leave the company at the time you did. Normally a company don`t disclose the matters when they do terminate a high ranking level marketeer and this is the case here too, i consider myself a network marketer also and for this reason i consider you a colleague and will respect you (and your stand point) and i hope that if what you said here is true, you`ll win in court. I`m glad you come
    forward and let us all know your side of the story, we will all know the true someday after the judgement day in court.

    For Mr Nuyten:

    Hartelijk bedankt Mr Nuyten voor sturen mij een email met de antwoord van Mr Dunn, ik hoop dat Mr
    Dunn gelijk geeft en zul winnen wanneer hij de waarheid gesproken geeft, normaal sproken een bedrijf waar alles goed gaat stuur niet weg een werknemer die duizenden dollars produceert voor de maatschapij en zeker niet in de beginen wanneer een werknemer van zulke hoogste harstikke nodig en gewaardeert is, en wij allees weten dat de waarheid altijd twee kanten geeft, ik ben al vijf maanden bezig om een netwerk aan te bouwen bij Max International after ervaring te heben gemaakt voor sommige jaren bij Amway hier in de Verenigde Staten, tot nu toe ik ben verbaas van de eerlijkheid en de openheid van de direktie en hoog geplaast vrouwen en heren van Max dat ik heeft onmoet, eigenlijk ik ben bezig met beginnen te helpen om een Christiaan ministerie voor spaanssprekende mensen op te bouwen hier in USA en in Zudamerika samen met Steven K Scott, de eigenaar van Max, in eerlijkheid ik kan niet praten van de rest van de direktie van Max, maar ik kan wel zegen dat Steven Scott is een eerlijk mens als bijna geen ander in dit wereld te vinden is en aldus ik over deze zaken niets heeft gehoord van Steven zelf, ik kan wel vertellen dat iets moet verkeerd zijn in de verhaald van Mr Dunn, ik ben zeker 100 % dat Steven Scott stuur niet weg iemand die alleen maar hard gewerkt heeft voor de bedrijf en niets verkeerd heeft gedaan, bestaat niet. Andere verhaald is als de Heer Scott niets heeft geweten van wat het is gebeurd en de rest van de direktie alles heeft verhandeld, aldus ik vindt harstikke vreemd dat de eigenaar van een bedrijf niets weets van zulke ernstige problemen binnen de bedrijf.
    Enfin, wij alles zullen een van deze dagen de waarheid weten, ik wens jou een grote success met jou webpage en wens jou ook en hartelijk christmas en een prosperige 2011.
    Note: Het spijt me zeer voor mij nederlands, ik heb ze geleerd aan het werk tijdens mij 11 jaar leven in NL en nooit naar de school gewest on gramatika te leren, eigenlijk mij moeder taal is spaans, daarom de zoveel fouten met kompositie en schrijven, zul je graag meer weten van mij or van mij zaken hier in Amerika, schrijft maar, je zaal altijd een antwoord krijgen, de beste, Luis.

  19. Companies have progressively and insidiously changed their policies and procedures such that sales leaders are far more accountable for their actions and treated more like an employee than a business associate. The result is companies are terminating sales leaders at an alarming rate jeopardizing the entire residual income opportunity and asset value proposal.
    Just like a spiraling bad marriage sales leaders not trusting companies and looking to move from one company to another without letting go of their previous check, end up violating their agreements.
    We are headed in a very dangerous direction. I am not addressing this specific situation in this blog as I do not know the facts.
    This article shares the danger that lurks ahead unless we get our heads and hearts together and learn to respect and honor each others agenda. more then happy to speak openly with anyone who had the guts to call me about the stuff that they have been telling to others.

    http://www.richardbrooke.com/blogs/blog_111009.asp

  20. Hi there Richard, i have to agree with you as more and more of what you saying is what we are getting, there are close to 7500 mlm companies in USA by now and of course all they compite looking for the same, making money asap and as much as posible too.
    In order to obtein that there are not boundaries and money is use in a generous way, best known mlm`s leaders are contracted like football players with splendid contracts and are expected to do wonders in order to acomplish the dreams of the company owners, the true is that you don`t create a mlm leader in a night and by now all the best out there are contracted so the only way is to get them where there are, in other companies, of course, in order to get somebody earning already a nice amount of money there is not other way than offering more money than they are getting and loyalty, teams and followers change of team colours like free agents players at the end of the season.
    All of that is doing a very poor favor to the entire mlm world but unfortunately this is gonna be the standard from now on IMHO, companies rules by principles and rules of fair play do exist but are getting scarce and will be more dificult to find in a nearly future, all those factors are creating a new race of greaders leaders who`s ambition and lust for money will only become bigger when more and more companies are expected to get in the race for a small byte of the new economy cake, the mlm world. Just recently a friend of mine did introduce me to somebody who got a knowledge of the cybernetic world, he do have a internet site who recluts people willing to try the mlm world and put them in one of the 5 companies he is working for at the same time, just depending of the promotions at this moment in every company and the level he is getting close to, unbelievable but true, is that the future or simply mlm prostitution?, decide for yourself, i don`t like that and althought the old school cost you more time and being honest and openly and trustworthy may be out of fashion and produce less money, it`s help me sleep better at night with a clear conscience and make me feel close to mens and God, have a good one.

  21. The problem with these kinds of stories is they are all about positioning, politics, making this party look good and that party look bad. Everyone knows lawyers are liars. The truth is, we will never know the truth. Why waste our time reading what they want us to think?

  22. Mr. Dunn’s story in my opinion explains it all: all kinds of BULLSHIT starts when companies start paying leaders (bridge-)money to come over. How much should we respect (high profile) leaders (like mr. Dunn) that build a business based on this?

    Will such activities create a business based on trust, integrity and respect… or one based on greed, misleading people and mistrust? My guess is the latter!

    So for me this is a typical case of “The Universe Strikes Back”. You reap what you have been sowing. Dont do to other people what you dont want others to do to you!

    The most sad thing about it is that all of this doesnt help our business get a better reputation. Shame on all involved. I hope the judge decides that all parties lose and have to send money to mr. Dunn’s good Cause.

    Good luck,

    Eric

  23. Listen, network marketing mirrors any other business concept on Earth. You never get something for nothing. You can’t expect to make it big without an investment of time and money. Organizations with so called “open door” policies need to have the same integrity they expect out of each distributor. The key to building any relationship or to a successful marketing plan is to establish trust and maintain it.

    People love to complain, compare and contend. People love to point the finger outward, but fear that strong look from within. Any leader has to expect people to make decisions that best suit them. It may not be easy, and it sure might make the next person have to work harder…but let people do as they wish, for better or for worse.

    A strong marketing plan will have its “highs” and “lows.” This is true in any business and in any economic climate. Don’t panic. Don’t complain. Just remain consistent in message and keep on sharing with great heart, commitment and above all with integrity! More than a few solid companies exist that take care of the “Quality” part.

    Marketing is the most conservative investment any business person can make. It can take thousands of dollars to generate interest in a product. It could take a person months if not years before they make a purchase decision. Think of a Hi-Def TV. You probably know exactly where you want to go to purchase one. But you put it off, sit around and compare, and thirteen months from today…you will purchase a TV. During this time, that store location will continue to advertise and go through volume fluctuations from month to month. That store will not quit because nobody is buying for a few days, few weeks, and in some cases a month at a time.

    In network marketing, people jump around because they fail to create depth in many cases. They “buy” a dream, and often live a dream. When the “dream” phase wears off, they start to point the finger at their own company. With this, some solid distributors get offers they can’t refuse to make a switch. Any story, and in way you look at it…let people have the freedom to choose. It is their business.

    Peter Dean Bouloukos
    “Social Media Success Secrets” Facebook
    “Peter Dean Bouloukos” Facebook
    “Xowii Ventura” Facebook

  24. Appreciate all the comments. You live and learn in life. I found that doing what Max asked me to do: to go out and recruit tier 1 and tier 2 leaders really did not serve anyone. The provision of some monies did not change the end result. The ones that believed in the opportunity built the business. The biggest lesson I have learned is that we should take the time to choose owners of company’s, corporate officers who really know what they are doing. Richard Brooke is a great example of a company owner who truly has the heart of the people in his mind. Thanks Richard for posting here.

    Also, I don’t want to take any light away from Terry’s situation. She was wrongfully terminated and will win her case. She is remaining respectfully quiet but I know she is reading this and is grateful for all of the encouragement.

    Just to be clear, Ted was a bit off in this posting. Terry is not suing me or Max.

    Good luck to Terry.

  25. Disgusted! Hope she wins this case. This illustrates a perfect example of why Monitium was created to protect you, the professional network marketer!  Imagine losing your MLM income overnight, especially if you were making a whopping $330,000 a year
     
    How would you feel (or maybe it’s already happened to you), if you poured your heart and soul into building “one” MLM business for years, and the company simply terminates you as easily as they would terminate a receptionist? 
     
    Also consider the sobering reality that for each one of these cases that actually hits the courts, thousands of other wrongfully terminated distributors go unrepresented each year resulting in untold hardships. 
     
    By sharing Monitium with other network marketers you’re offering one of the greatest gifts, which is financial empowerment and protection for their family’s financial future.  
     
    What’s the real tangible value of Monitium’s “protection contract” which enables Monitium to act as an advocate on your behalf with each MLM partner if you become the target of a compliance department investigation = PRICELESS!

    http://monitiumtopteam.monitium.com/

  26. Disgusted!
    Hope she wins this case. This illustrates a perfect example of why Monitium was created to protect you, the professional network marketer!  Imagine losing your MLM income overnight, especially if you were making a whopping $330,000 a year
     
    How would you feel (or maybe it’s already happened to you), if you poured your heart and soul into building “one” MLM business for years, and the company simply terminates you as easily as they would terminate a receptionist? 
     
    Also consider the sobering reality that for each one of these cases that actually hits the courts, thousands of other wrongfully terminated distributors go unrepresented each year resulting in untold hardships. 
     
    By sharing Monitium with other network marketers you’re offering one of the greatest gifts, which is financial empowerment and protection for their family’s financial future.  
     
    What’s the real tangible value of Monitium’s “protection contract” which enables Monitium to act as an advocate on your behalf with each MLM partner if you become the target of a compliance department investigation = PRICELESS!

    http://monitiumtopteam.monitium.com/

  27. I attended the meeting mentioned in the suit and Frank L. VanderSloot did not say the things are mentioned in the suit. It is all hearsay. I have over 30 years experience in the home business industry including over 17 years with Melaleuca and I have never met anyone with more integrity than Frank VanderSloot. I spent seven years on the Executive Leadership Council, have attended 34 SELC Conferences, seventeen conventions and have been in hundreds of small and large meetings with Frank and I have never heard him personally attack anyone for any reason. Policies are there for a reason and those who become leaders are should always be aware of them in any company.

  28. We were with Melaleuca for over 17 years and witnessed the many numerous changes this company has made. They changed their Policies and Procedures along with their Compensation Plan sometimes 3 times a year! Who knew what you could and couldn’t do? No one could even tell you how the bonuses were paid because it was too complicated! It is definitely not the company we joined so many years ago.

    Melaleuca says you can join another business venture but if they find out you do, the phone calls from your Regional Director start coming in. That’s what happened to us. We received a call saying they had heard we were in another company (supposedly ok), they had nothing on us (done nothing wrong), but they just wanted to remind us of our responsibilities as a leader! Threatening?!?!

    A low level distributor was threatened by Melaleuca’s attorneys that they would take away her $300/month check if she didn’t write a letter against us! We never even talked to her! Yet someone else did, so that put us in violation? We were no part of the other person contacting her!

    Have you ever heard of a company offering amnesty to its distributors before? That’s what they did with their top distributors in Oct, 2009! Amnesty? For what, joining another company? But, wait, I thought you could! Just like you have to report others or you can be terminated? What kind of company is this really?

    Natalie Foeller has won every court motion so far, filed by Melaleuca. They cannot prove that she has hurt them in any way! She is a wonderful leader and I am proud of her for what she has done! The truth will rule!

    As for Terry Dorfman, she was never in another company during her time with Melaleuca. So, how could she have hurt them? She was up for President’s Club because of her growth and leadership before they terminated her. My sister and brother both were in numerous other companies during our time in Melaleuca, so that means we were too? How ridiculous! I think Frank was just mad about her continued friendship with Natalie (so now we can’t even keep our friends if they leave?)

    This company is like no other…oh that’s right, they even claim they are not MLM!! hahahaha!! The brain washing starts with day 1, kinda like some cult religion! It appears that Frank demands complete and total loyalty, kind of like one of history’s famous German Dictators, so when you join something else….

    I have heard Frank make numerous statements about others. His top distributors were mad at both SELC and Convention on his comments about President Obama and the Democrats. He also talks negatively about the DSA and other network marketing companies and their leadership. He basks in the glory of other company’s failures by creating a graveyard of failed companies.

    Read the Policies and Procedures before you join a company; but try to Melaleuca’s and you first have to log into the back office. So, are they out there for everyone to read or are they hidden?

    My advice, from someone who finally feels free from the clutches of this company’s culture, when someone approaches you with Melaleuca, RUN!! There are many good companies out there that truly know what it means to be an Independent Contractor. NOT this one!

  29. What has happened to Ms. Dorfman is a travesty and a total miscarriage of justice. This is a typical example how a large corporation can literally put someone?s life on hold at will as well as creating financial hardships on the individual not to mention the emotional stress that this frivolous law suit has caused to Ms. Dorfman.

  30. Gail, I agree with you. We’ve all heard the rumors about Frank Vandersloot and Melaleuca in the past over the years. From their lies of not being MLM to the complete control their owner has on the field. I can’t imagine any networker wanting to join a company that would so “frivolously” take someone’s hard earned business away. I hope Terry prevails and that her win helps everyone in the industry. This is unacceptable and each of us needs to stand up against this kind of bullying.

  31. Terry Dorfman! I couldn’t believe it when some friends told me about someone suing Frank Vandersoot…FINALLY someone was willing to take him on. When I checked out the mlm news sites to learn that it was Terry i was shocked. I’ve tried recruiting her for the last couple years and she has never budged a moment from her loyalty to Melalueca. It was only a few months ago that we spoke and she was telling me all her goals for the next couple years. What is the motivation to terminate someone like her? I’ve heard for years how this company operates and how no one is independent or even owns their businesses. I understood they couldn’t sell their positions but I had no idea that the company would treat their top earners in this way. Amnesty cards? Accussing someone of being more loyal to a friend than their business? Interrogating someone with a company lawyer and recording it? I hope this news does not scare others away from the terrific companies with owners who have high intregity. Terry, I’m sure you are reading these comments. Please call me if you want any help. I have a few ideas and if your lawyer allows it, I’d love to invite you to speak on a couple forums I belong to. Keep your chin up, you are one of the good ones. I am in shock and will do what I can to muster some support for you.

  32. I met Terry Dorfman in 1998 at the Melaleuca Sr. Director Training in Idaho Falls. We have stayed friends ever since. In 2001 I left Melaleuca to join another nutritional company. Terry and I would call each other on a regular basis, each trying to recruit the other, but Terry was fiercely loyal to Melaleuca and would be what I would describe as “unrecruitable.” It is inconceivable to me that she would be terminated for “looking at another company.” All of us who are professional networkers know that merely means we agree to look and listen in hope of developing a relationship and possibly reverse recruiting. More than once Terry listened to my story and looked at my company’s compensation plan, but then the next week she’d be calling me with her upline, putting me through the same drill.

    Terry has been terribly maligned by her company, and with these difficult economic times, a $30,000 or more/month check taken from a terminated marketing executive can make a difference for a company, no matter how large. More importantly, that frivolous move from a company who owns the heart and soul, but especially the lives of its marketing executives, can instill amazing anxiety in those “independent” contractors, forcing them to comply with illegal and unethical requirements in order to (hopefully) secure their future checks. I know, because I’ve personally recruited a number of Melaleuca marketing executives, most of who join secretly with me for fear of going through the same ordeal that Terry has suffered.

    I’m proud of Terry for taking the stand she has and being the second, right behind Natalie Foeller who just won the first case against Melaleuca, to make public the truth of the highly unethical practices of this longstanding but seriously compromised company. Truly it is time for the truth to come out. Go for it, Terry!!

    If anyone would like to read the actual court document Terry’s attorney has filed, here it is: http://www.mlm-thewholetruth.com

  33. Now I truly understand why I heard a great leader say he would never work with another mlm company started in the US…….too much greed!

  34. As a bit of a contrarian, I think this kind of open discussion is healthier than the hidden stealth like tactics that this industry has been operating under for far too long. It is time to take this kind of abusive treatment by corporate owners/management seriously and STOP IT NOW. If we want to be considered as network marketing professionals then I believe we need to understand what the roles and responsibilities are of the company and the commissioned sales force. The big question here is-are we independent contractors? If we truly are independent, then what exactly does that mean? There is too much grey here. I spent many years in senior corporate Human Resources with Fortune 500 companies and we frequently ran into cultural clashes and personality conflicts. People change, organizations change…This is standard operating stuff. Companies can do what they see as the best strategy for their company BUT it is standard operating procedure to sever relations with a time specific non-compete clause and a healthy settlement if the individuals involved were senior enough and there was just cause or not. Why can’t we be treated in the same respectful manner? I don’t know Terry Dorfman personally, but I do know that this kind of treatment of a “female” professional is unacceptable and is truly terrifying as well. I applaud her courage to bring this shoddy treatment by a company like Melaleuca to full public disclosure. It’s time to stop these kind of gestapo actions. If a company treats their field team with dignity ,respect, and honor, then I don’t see why these kind of horror stories would happen anyway. Oh and by the way, people would NOT be as likely to leave either! In full disclosure, I do know Natalie and Rick Foeller who have just won the first case against Melaleuca. I have known then for more than 16 years in this industry and know how much integrity and grit they have. I think it is time to bring this to a bigger platform such as the main stream news media…I love this industry and want to protect it against the “big Bullies” who have major control and scarcity issues. Let’s protect our “golden goose.” Most companies and leaders use the vision of creating freedom through network marketing.
    Do these actions look like freedom to you?
    To get a further look into this rapidly escalating into further bizarre case, take a look at the most recent complaint by Melaleuca here: https://www.businessforhome.org/2011/01/melaleuca-versus-ted-nuyten-lawsuit/

  35. I think this type of discussion group is great. In my 15+ years of being involved in the network marketing industry, I have heard to many times about the tactics that a few corporations have use to get rid of their top producers. Change a rule here, change a policies there all in an effort to discourage those in certain positions to the point that they get fed up with the company and leave. In so doing, the high paying position becomes orphaned and they no longer have to pay out those commissions, in Terry’s case $30,000. I wish Terry all the best in her suit against Melaleuca.

  36. I applaud you all for your comments and support for Terry she deserves all your respect. A few months ago Terry called me just after Melaleuca terminated her and stopped her income. See I too had been terminated some months earlier because I had had my fill of the tactics of this company. As leaders, without a voice, the changes to policy and marketing plan by a select few had resulted in a loss of confidence and income. Years ago the management of this company made a Major change to the marketing plan where the field had to generate leadership points every month in order to get their checks, I lost a large part of the leadership on our team. One of the most respected leaders , George McCune fondly known by all as the COACH , said it best in regards to this major change, “This is going to make allot of honest people dishonest.” Your wisdom and knowledge of people has come full circle thanks for your friendship in the years past. As for Jim McCunes’ comments above , shame on you, I can remember a time when you were not so kind towards the management , I guess your brothers’ statement has effected even you his partner and enroller. In digging through this website I have found numerous high ranking Melaleuca Marketing Executives names, I am sure that several have been watching this site as this has developed over the past week or so. You will not see any comments from them for two reasons 1. The management is watching like hawks and they have been warned not to comment or 2. they are applauding but are terrified to comment. The leadership of this company owes the Foeller’s, Alimena’s, the Agren’s and us a huge debt of gratitude because 2 years ago we stood up against the unfair tactics of this company. The way I hear it you all received a raise right after SELC in San Diego in Oct. ’09, funny our Christmas card count was down that year when it actually should have gone through the roof. There are several other things I heard about that meeting but we will leave that for another time.

  37. Is this really happening? Why is this company still in business? I looked at Melaleuca with a team that focused on stay at home moms and decided against it because of all the bad scam news out there then. Back then there was a high level earner who had been terminated. Maybe when you make a lot of money they get greedy and find you dispensible. Can’t the DRA or DSA do something to protect people like Terry Dorfman? We’ve heard how vile this company is for so many years and yet they continue. Even though no Melaleuca people are coming to her defense (likely because of fear), I?ve talked to several who hate what their owner is doing. One of my friends doesn?t think she can do the business anymore and I?m sure there are many others feeling the same way. Does anyone have suggestions about what we can do as a group of concerned networkers to help stop this? We need to work together so other owners can?t abuse and discard their distributors like has happened to this woman. As a woman, I can?t imagine being interrogated on my own in a room full of men especially without a lawyer, finally after getting back to my hotel only to be whisked back to HQ for further interrogation with Frank Vandersloot himself! I can?t imagine anything more intimidating. Don?t we live in the United States of America a country that values freedom and independence. This sounds more like the Gestapo. We can?t sit back and allow this to happen to her. How can we help Terry Dorfman and in the bigger picture, help protect our industry. Because whether melaleuca wants to admit it or not, they are an MLM company but they represent what everyone hates about MLM. Please post your comments and suggestions. Let?s work together to see that this never happens to anyone in Melaleuca or any other company again!

  38. If anyone here knows how to get in touch with Terry? If so have her set up a fund that we can donate to. This is a bunch of crock and Frank and Melaleuca need to loose this! Terry let us know how to get money to your lawyer team!

  39. Setting up a fund for Terry, Foellers and the others is a great idea. Every person in this industry should and can contribute to this, it affects us all.

    I left Melaleuca after attending a convention where the theme and corporate message was broadcast loud and clear. “All roads lead to Melaleuca”. This was the message, this is the belief and people in any lawsuit hopefully recognize this.

    Have Frank explain in court to the judge just what is meant by “All roads lead to Melaleuca” in this free and democratic society we have built.

  40. When you read these comments and those on your post Ted with Melaleuca trying to get you to pull down this site there is a common theme. Seems to me considering Melaleuca isn’t an MLM company according to them, Frank runs the operation as if everyone are simply employees, wonder how the IRA would look upon the Independent Marketing Executive title. If all roads lead to Melaleuca, Building a business to last a Lifetime , as long as you don’t say a word or act Independent in anyway.
    Ted set up the fund for legal fees we need to set the record straight , count me in !!!!

  41. In April 2009, after over 11 years building the Melaleuca business, I was ordered to come to Idaho Falls to meet with management and company attorneys. I had dared to call the President of the company, McKay Christensen “arrogant” in an e-mail. I was told, that if I refused to come, the company might hold my check. That was the first time the thought of leaving Melaleuca ever crossed my mind.
    For many years I had known there were problems at Melaleuca. I was troubled by the companies loss of focus on the mission statement, the big company “GROWTH CHART” that seemed to be everywhere, the terminations and lawsuits, the loss of almost all of their top level management, and the favoritism extended by the company to certain individuals. Even more troubling was the fact that everyone on my team at the Senior or Executive Director Level was out of Executive Status, with almost all business going backwards. Checks were pathetic. My own income was down by over 50% of what it had been in prior years. I found it increasingly difficult to promote the business to new people, because I had lost belief that anyone could really make the “dream” money at Melaleuca, and at best, even with all the help I could give them, my recent experience was that new people would be better off getting a job. But NEVER had I thought of starting over with another company. I just had too much of myself invested in that business, and at 61 starting over was not an option. I honestly was hoping for a “turn-around” by the company, and was doing what I could with my e-mail campaign to speak for the field.
    In July ’09, I got a call from a good friend in Melaleuca saying he was under investigation for a policy 20 violation, and that the company was holding his check, and that they were sending a Corporate VP and an attorney to his home the next day for a signed statement. He was shaken. After speaking wih an attorney, he was advised not to let them come. I received a call the same day. They were holding both of our checks. They started soliciting people in my organization and asking them about my activities. They needed people to write letters against me. They could not find one individual to say that I prospected them into another company. Not one. They wanted my friend to sign a document (that they wrote) that said I had been trying to recruit him. They told him they would release his check if he would sign the document. He kept refusing, but it was taking a huge toll on his emotional well being. He really needed that check. He had a child he supported in college, and another that needed expensive medication that he now couldn’t buy, and he was getting behind on his bills. He was being emotionally tortured and I was afraid for him. I thought something terrible might happen, so I resigned so they would give him his check. It was not an easy thing to do, and I remember standing at my FAX machine for a long time before sending it off.
    Shortly after that, late one night, a person showed up at my home and served us with a lawsuit from Melaleuca. For $500.00, Frank was able to get the Idaho judges to slap a restraining order on us, based on his own affidavit, and letters written from people they solicited, again, none saying I had talked to them regarding another business. My attorneys could not believe that this kind of action could be bought for $500.00.

    Frank has power, and he knows how to use it. When my friend sat down with his Corporate representatives, they basically told him that if I wanted a lawsuit to “bring it on”, that they never loose.
    My hope is that maybe this time they will. Thank you everyone for your support. As Rod Cook at the MLM watchdog said “This sounds like it comes out of a spy novel, not an MLM company…..it reads like a book and could become one of the most popular non-fiction stories in the MLM industry.”
    I pray it does.

  42. 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 Mr. Nuyten on his web posting above.

    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.

    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.

    Note: 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.

    Sincerely,

    Michael LaClare
    Melaleuca Associate General Counsel

  43. 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. Exhibit A, 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.

    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.
    EXHIBIT A:
    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.?

    ************
    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 http://www.melaleucaawards.com.

    Sincerely,

    Michael LaClare
    Melaleuca Associate General Counsel

  44. So…take down the site; then post on the site.

    Hundreds of thousands have joined Melaleuca – how and why they left is what is being discussed on this board. “The truth will be good enough”, and fortunately for Terry and others, it will be the truth that a court of law decides and determines; not that of one acting to “protect your business from being raided, CUT and DRY”

    Perhaps your truth is not the truth at all…
    People are not property.
    Free enterprise is just that, free and many doubt that any court will enforce or impose policies that go against solid business principals.

    Good luck Terry and others.

  45. Melaleuca will likely never again recruit anyone so devoted to their work. Terry spent 99% of her time working Melaleuca. I know that as a long time personal friend of Terry’s it was hard to find social time with her. Melaleuca always came first. I know 100% that she never had any intention of leaving Melaleuca for Max or anyone else.

    Frank and team……you really screwed yourself this time! Good luck finding another Terry! You don’t deserve to have her on your team. I have no doubt that she will soon be hugely successful without you!

  46. 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!

  47. I am a Executive Directer with Melalueca and have been with the company for 7 years. I am a President’s Club winner and have served on many boards and have spent extensive time with Frank Vandersloot and the mangement team.

    The companies policies are well know by it’s leaders and are in place to protect the company and Marketing Executives. MLM compaines talk about residual income but almost all can’t produce because their comp. plan products and business practices fall short.

    Melaleuca is the one place I know where a person can come, work hard and build a business and income that will last year after year. As a leader I find peace of mind knowing the company is protecting itself and my business from those that may want to do us harm.

    Frank Vandersloot is honest man. He is a man of standard and intergrity and would never use his power to hurt anyone let alone his leaders. He protects his business and leaders and other companies should do the same.

    I suggest you hold your judgement and wait for the outcome of this case. My guess is you will be suprised by the outcome as Melaleuca I am sure by past experience has more than ample cause to bring legal action.

    Lastly, if anyone is looking for a great company where you can build a business that will last and work with a management team sought after by other companies because of thier success then join Melaleuca and experience the best company in the industry!

Comments are closed.

Load more