No Backpay For Hostile Environment Alone
Posted
4:16 PM
by Michael Fox
Today's decision in Spencer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (11/22/06)[pdf], makes one of those simple points that it is easy to overlook. Plaintiff made two ADA arguments — failure to accommodate and hostile environment. She did not claim constructive discharge. The jury found against her on the accommodation claim, but for her on hostile environment. It awarded $12,000 for emotional damages and $15,000 for backpay.
Wal-mart successfully argued that back pay is an equitable remedy, only for the court's determination and should not have been submitted to a jury. Since there was no claim of constructive discharge, there should have been no award of backpay. Both the district court and now the 3rd Circuit agreed, throwing out the $15,000 award.
And to make matters worse, although the trial court ultimately decided that plaintiff had been the prevailing party because of her win on the hostile environment issue, it also decided that her requested attorneys fees of just over $150,000 should be reduced by 75%. Given that the trial court had compared her success to what she had claimed to have suffered, over $500,000 in damages, and that she did not benefit in any way other than the $12,000 damage award since she had resigned, the appellate court did not find the trial court's reduction an abuse of discretion.
Labels: attorneys fees, damages, hostile environment
Hostile Environment Claim Under ADA - Possible
Labels: ADA, hostile environment
1st Circuit Leaves For Another Day Question of Whether Hostile Work Environment Claim Is Viable Under the ADA
Labels: ADA, hostile environment
Posted
10:11 PM
by Michael Fox
But just showing that some of your fellow employees teased you, even when they did so using mental health terms was not enough to allow a former deputy to defeat the County's motion for summary judgment. Lanman v. Johnson County (10th Cir. 12/30/04).
Although having been a deputy since 1987, Lanman testified that beginning in March 2001 several of her co-workers begin treating her as if she were mentally ill. Among the things that she complained about: [They would]call her "nuts" or "crazy." ... When someone "hyped up on drugs" or "hostile" would be placed in a special holding cell (1A4), Deputy Judd Brungardt would tell her "Lanman, there is someone like you. Go get your relative out of 1A4. They act just like you." She also testified Deputy Bernie Beletsky made comments like the following approximately once a week: "Oh Lanman, you are going off the deep end again," or "Let's give her some chocolate and let's see her go off the deep end," and "Are you off your medication?," or "Why don't you try a different medication."
After some other incidents and a mistake in classifying prisoners, she was suspended pending a psychological fitness for duty exam, which she passed. She returned and was assigned to another position. On her first day she was suspended for three days after a confrontation over whether she needed to work with a training officer in the new position. When she heard it was announced at roll call that she would be returning and if anyone had any problems with it they should talk to the supervisor in private, she chose to resign.
Her suit claimed all of this created a hostile environment in violation of the ADA. While the Court agreed that such a cause of action existed, it also held that Lanman must first establish that she was disabled before she could bring such a claim. Since she claimed nothing was wrong with her, she was forced to rely on the "perceived as" prong of the disability definition. That required that she show both that the employer believed she had an impairment and that it believed the impairment substantially limited a major life activity. The limited comments of co-workers and even the request for psychological exam were not nearly enough to meet that burden. No disability, no ADA claim, even for a hostile environment.
Posted
9:45 AM
by Michael Fox
In Rocafort v. IBM, the 1st Circuit affirms a summary judgment on an ADA claim brought by an individual who suffered anxiety attacks, including the fear that he was going to be terminated on his return to work. He also sought to raise a hostile environment claim. Saying the law was unsettled in the 1st Circuit on that issue, the court rather than addressing it found Rocafort had waived it by not raising it below. For those who might see this as just another case where the employer wins an ADA case, should review the facts carefully for the efforts, time and expense that IBM spent on an employee who was certainly not being productive.
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
