Anita Holland shifted awkwardly on the witness stand as she testified. The attorney pressed, "So, you believe Mr. Dotson took one case of Zithromax samples as a bribe for the orphanage in order to 'get a baby'?" With hesitation she responded, "Yes, sir...." Jim and Ann Dotson were overjoyed when they returned to the United States with their newly-adopted baby daughter in October of 2003. Now, with their three biological children--Hillary, Bennett, and Hunter--they felt Aselya made their family complete. Not only that, but Jim had an excellent career at what Fortune magazine had just recently dubbed "The World's Best Company"--Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. Jim had been with the company fifteen years now, and, until the decision to adopt, seemed on the career track to retire from Pfizer as a top executive. Then, just ten days after returning to the United States with Aselya, Jim was fired without any of the normal warnings. Three years later, the case of Dotson vs. Pfizer began in a Federal Courthouse in North Carolina For Jim Dotson and his family; however, it was much more than a suit for unlawful termination. There was something else at work. When Jim had decided to balance his life more between home and career--and without any drop in his sales numbers or productivity--his supervisors at Pfizer began treating him differently. Had his decision to place more value on his family time really been the first domino to fall in a conspiracy to fire him? Jim knew something wasn't right, so he decided to take on one of the biggest companies in the world before a jury of his peers to see if the truth would win out. Would it? Or would his actions destroy his reputation and even further hurt the very family he was standing to defend?
About the Author: Turning actual events into a concise narrative involves challenges. How do you keep readers interested while presenting a multitude of details? What is needed and what should be excluded from roughly 2,000 pages of court testimony and documents? Can sworn testimony be edited and summarized without compromising the facts? Will compressing the timing of events skew what actually happened? Just how much can be changed and the story still be true? With these questions in mind, the following story is presented, to the best of our ability, to be true to the events surrounding the case of Dotson vs. Pfizer that was tried before a Federal Court in May 2006. Names have been changed to protect privacy. Summaries of court proceedings and repetitive testimony have been condensed to propel the narrative while preserving the trial's essential elements, adhering to facts, and doing our best to maintain an honest, objective perspective. Some lines of argument that, in our opinion, added nothing to the case or the story have been removed entirely. At the same time, this gripping personal experience reflects a transformative shift in American social culture--one that holds great significance--now and for the future. Thus we have done what we can to preserve its integrity. It is truly a story that needs to be told with as much fidelity to the facts and events as possible. With these considerations in mind, we humbly submit that: The following narrative is based on a true story.