Quicken Loans Statement
“Quicken Loans disagrees with the Court’s decision to deny our motion to dismiss. We believe the law is clear: One cannot deny a claim in bankruptcy and then turn around and sue to recover on claims that one has denied exist.
The court did not rule on the merits of Ms. Knight’s claim; it simply ruled that it was too early to dismiss this case without the benefit of more facts.
Quicken Loans pays and always has paid its team members fairly and in accordance with all laws. Regrettably, Ms. Knight never brought to the attention of her managers nor the company any claim that she was not being paid properly while she was employed; it was only after she was terminated that she made such assertions.
At Quicken Loans, we take pride in our “open door” policy. One of our core principals is to “Do the Right Thing.” If any team member has a concern and/or issue with how we do things or believe we may not be doing it the right way, we strongly encourage that they bring it to the attention of their team leader and/or our senior leaders.
Quicken Loans categorically denies this claim has any merit whatsoever. Unfortunately, we fear that this case is another example of the reckless permissiveness of our current day legal system.
This permissiveness allows highly specialized and experienced plaintiff law firms the near riskless incentive to gin up “class action” cases against good, hard-working, job-producing companies. These legal “businesses” routinely deploy the strategy of pressuring their targets with the certain prospect of large monetary expense and time consuming cost involved to defend these baseless claims. In addition, these law firms methodically exploit the always implicit threat of losing a case despite the often meritless nature of the action.
All of this is consistent with the calculated blueprint of extracting an unjust settlement from their victim who they hope will concede and “cry uncle”. Once again, as we have demonstrated in past attacks of this nature against our organization, we simply will not pay off these firms to simply make these kinds of cases ‘go away”.”
