Icon Solutions, NBC 2

Are you still with me?

My job involved writing a certain part of the Genesis system. This part relied on data from another part, called "Sales Extract," which had supposedly been written and completed by another Icon consultant. However, Sales Extract was not functioning. So I examined it.

The code was truly loathsome -- dumb, repetitive, and maybe 100 times more voluminous than necessary. But what was more remarkable was that no one had ever asked certain essential questions, relating to NBC requirements, as to what the program was supposed to do.

In other words, not only was Sales Extract not working -- even though it had been paid for, had been considered complete by the client, and was marked "done" on the large and complicated project schedule -- but in addition, no one was even clear on exactly what Sales Extract should do. (Sales Extract was probably not exceptional among the "done" tasks but it's the only one I became familiar with.)

Over the next two weeks I spent a lot of time working together with two NBC managers to nail down these requirements. I also rewrote Sales Extract from scratch. The new version -- clear, readable, efficient, a tiny fraction of the original's in length -- worked perfectly.

Now here is the funny part. The young fellow who had written the original Sales Extract got wind of this and took personal offense. And he complained to ... an NBC manager! Even though he, like me, was working there as an Icon consultant!

This led to a "political" situation in which it was noted by NBC that they were paying fees for Sales Extract twice. As a result, Icon agreed not to bill for my work. I was not privy to how this was relayed to the Icon chieftains, but various signals indicated I was not portrayed as a hero.

After I'd been fired from Icon, they rejected my attempts to obtain reimbursement for a $100 expense they had authorized during my employ. After several failed attempts to recuperate the money, I finally sued in Small Claims Court. (SC 5783/97, January 13, 1998.)

Since I was being obliged to resort to court, I decided to sue for the full $3000 Small Claims Court maximum by also claiming two weeks' severance pay. Under New York State's "at will" employment law, I was not entitled to this, and I didn't expect to get it. I also subpoenaed Genesis project manager Richard James Mohr -- my former boss and a "principal" (one step down from the two top chiefs) of Icon Solutions.

During a pre-trial appearance, Hugh Rothbaum, Esq., Icon's lawyer, strived mightily to persuade the judge to summarily dismiss my "frivolous" action. He also directly approached me, urging me to be "reasonable" and settle for the $100 I'd originally sought.

Nope.

Then Rothbaum did something incredible, I will even say miraculous. Unaccountably believing he was producing something that would make me want to yield, he gave me a copy of a portion of the Icon company manual which stated that company policy was to provide two weeks' severance pay upon termination unless termination was for cause -- in which case there would be no severance pay.

He had handed me my case. I just had to show I hadn't been terminated for cause.

I got my hearing, and a judgment for $3,217.50 ($3000 + interest).

Collecting was another matter. The cheque was not forthcoming. It was difficult to reach Rothbaum. He left half a dozen messages on my home answering machine -- but the messages only said to call him, and he'd be out when I called him back.

When we finally connected I learned what he hadn't wanted to say on tape. He warned I would have difficulty collecting on the Court's judgment, since Icon was an out-of-state company, and he proposed a "settlement" of $1500.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. But isn't a "settlement" something you usually do before a verdict?

People, I will leave you to guess as to whether I settled for 1500.

But this was by way of a tangent. I wanted to report to you the portion of my cross-examination dealing with the Sales Extract situation:

MR. WITTENBERG: Did the client consider the Sales Extract module complete when I first looked at it?

MR. MOHR: Sales Extract module was complete. There were changes that are ongoing in this process.

MR. WITTENBERG: It was complete but it had to be changed.

MR. MOHR: There were changes that were made, yes.

MR. WITTENBERG: Would you agree that I made very fundamental changes to the Sales Extract module because the version that was in existence when I arrived was completely incorrect?

MR. MOHR: Well, I believe what you did was totally rewrite what was currently there to no one's knowledge until after the fact that we learned that you were not modifying the code as expected but rewriting it.

MR. WITTENBERG: Mr. Mohr, you're not sticking to the question.

MR. MOHR: You asked me whether you were --

MR. WITTENBERG: Was it correct when I arrived?

MR. MOHR: The software was in development. We were in development.

MR. WITTENBERG: But didn't the client --

MR. MOHR: It wasn't a Q/A piece of software.

MR. WITTENBERG: Didn't the client consider it complete?

MR. MOHR: I don't know what the client considered complete. We were in the development process.

MR. WITTENBERG: When I wrote it and the bill was submitted, isn't it true that the client would not pay fees for my work on Sales Extract because they claimed they had already paid fees to have it completed by somebody else?

MR. MOHR: That's not true.

MR. WITTENBERG: Didn't you tell me yourself that the client would not pay these fees for my work on Sales Extract because they considered it complete already?

MR. MOHR: We decided not to bill the client for those fees.

MR. WITTENBERG: And was that not the reason given?

MR. MOHR: No.

MR. ROTHBAUM: Your Honor, I think this is going to go on for a very long time.

MR. WITTENBERG: I find that hard to believe. You're under oath.

THE COURT: I think that I have the necessary evidence. Is there anything else that I haven't heard that you wish to tell me?

[excerpt from official court transcript]