Unfortunately, a $16K claim may be too large for small claims court (just guessing) but too small to make it worthwhile to hire an attorney and pursue a lawsuit. I've only had two situations in which the legal system functioned to my benefit.
When my first wife had a miscarriage after we were rear-ended in an automobile I hired an attorney and we were awarded 3X our direct medical expenses. The attorney said the "market value" of the case was much higher, but we felt the offer was reasonable and settled out of court.
Years later, my first wife divorced me after a ski hill accident crippled me for five years. I employed an attorney who negotiated what I thought was a very fair settlement w/o my having to go to court.
Beyond those situations, though I have consulted attorneys on a number of other occasions involving financial or professional damages, it has never seemed that the legal system was geared to help me out. If you become involved in a fight with a large and powerful organization it may take your retirement savings (if you have any) to pursue your complaint. That's too big a gamble for most of us wage earners.
However, I do think it's fair game to take a conflict public. Indeed, in many situations, that may be your only realistic option. The only rule should be that you are careful not to misrepresent the facts of the conflict.
Concerning SS's conflict with MS, my own reaction is that I would be exceedingly careful about entering into any sort of agreement with MS, if I ever decided to do so at all. We all live by our reputation, and reputation is established more by word of mouth (or print) than by any other mechanism.
However, I like Bark River knives, and I feel no compunction to boycott the product based on my awareness of a single possible unethical dealing. As another forumite suggested, I just don't have the time or energy to thoroughly investigate every accusation of fraud that does not involve me directly.
But concerning going public, I saved my career at Los Alamos National Laboratory by going public on a case involving "fraud and abuse of funds". Briefly, several managers attempted to pirate a large $2M contract I was negotiating with General Motors. I successfully resisted the piracy, but was subsequently given a RIF notice by the managers who were involved. Though I found another job at the Lab, the RIF action led to loss of the $2M contract, which I had pursued and negotiated with competitively awarded "program development" funds. So management action made it appear that I had been unsuccessful in my use of the program development funds, whereas, if fact, middle management had first tried to confiscate the contract, and, failing that, had ditched the contract by riffing me.
So, I became a whistle blower and consulted an attorney. It was clear that it would take my life savings to pursue a case in court. But my attorney gave me one piece of advice that proved to be my salvation. "Be very careful," he said, "because the Laboratory will retaliate, and if you later take them to court they will say that their action couldn't have been retaliation because they didn't even know you were a whistleblower."
So, you see the situation. The only protection I could provide for myself was to become one of the best known whistleblowers at the Laboratory. I contacted the press and got significant articles published in the Los Alamos Monitor and The Albuquerque journal. Later I spoke at a joint meeting of the California and New Mexico state legislatures on Laboratory management problems. I continued my campaign for 6 years, and, at one point, was invited to give a talk to congress involving management issues at the Lab. Ultimately, I was able to retire at age 60 with relatively little professional damage.
Bottom line is: Going public with a management misconduct issue saved my ass at a time when no viable legal options were available to me.
I wish you luck SS. Your complaint sounds credible to me. Hope my post is not viewed as being wildly off topic. I felt that a little real world discussion concerning how to combat a case of fraud when available legal options are untenable might be useful.
