IBJNews

Royal Spa owner prevails in suits involving ex-employee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The co-owner of Indianapolis-based Royal Spa Corp. has prevailed in a year-long legal dispute in which he and a former executive of the company sued one another in separate courts.

Royal Spa CEO Robert Dapper won a judgment of $8,484 against ex-employee Kevin Roessler, and had a complaint and counterclaim against him from Roessler and his wife dismissed.

Court records revealed no details about the dismissals, and lawyers representing both sides declined to comment on the suits.

The dismissals likely put an end to a salacious legal spat that included sexually charged allegations against Dapper and sordid details of the swinging lifestyle of Roessler, according to court papers.

The court battle began in October 2011, when Dapper sued Roessler and his wife, Marcella Roessler, charging that Roessler failed to pay for a spa that he purchased from the store on a payment schedule.

The remaining amount of $8,484, including a $2,000 loan Dapper said he gave Roessler, came due in full upon his departure from the company in March 2011. Roessler had served as Royal Spa’s director of business development since June 2008.

Dapper also named Roessler’s wife in the suit, claiming that the couple threatened to make damaging allegations against Dapper if he did not write Roessler a check.

Dapper won his judgment against the Roesslers in Marion Superior Court in March.

Six months later, on Sept. 10, Dapper also had a counterclaim filed against him by Marcella Roessler dismissed. Her suit claimed that Dapper defamed her by making false and sexually degrading statements about her to a couple interested in buying a hot tub from Royal Spa.

In the meantime, Kevin Roessler charged in federal court that Dapper sexually harassed him and his wife after learning that he had an “open” marriage, court papers said.

After discovering Roessler’s lifestyle, Dapper began to request that Roessler invite him to events where couples shared their sexual partners, according to the suit filed in April. Roessler insists in the complaint that he did not want to combine his personal life with his work and was hesitant to invite Dapper to the events.

Roessler, however, alleged that Dapper became so strident in his demands to be invited that he threatened to fire Roessler if he did not comply, so he relented.

Federal Judge Tanya Walton Pratt dismissed Roessler’s suit against Dapper in late August. No explanation was given for the decision in court documents.

Dapper co-founded Royal Spa in 1981 with Rick Bartlett. The company is headquartered at 2041 W. Epler Ave. on the south side. It has three company-owned locations and more than 50 dealers in Indiana and 10 other states, in addition to Belgium and the Netherlands, according to the company’s website.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • About Time
    I was glad to read that Mr. Dapper had prevailed. I hope that everyone that reported it as news in the beginning-will also feel compelled to let everyone know that he has prevailed. These people have tried to ruin Mr. Dapper's reputation-everyone needs to know that Bob prevailed and it was obvious to the courts that the other party causing the problem were in the wrong.
  • The Truth
    It was just as harmfull to the Roessler's who were speaking the truth. The outcome written here is clearly incomplete, since the specifics are undisclosed in court documents.
  • Kudos
    Kudos to IBJ for this story clarifying what previously to Dapper was a devastating and personally harmful report. Now Channel 8 and WIBC should get on board with their clarifications.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT