$100,000 in general damages, and $125,000 in attorney fees
Case I.D. Confidential.
L.A. Superior Central
Settlement: $225,000 plus reinstatement (broken down as $100,000 in general damages, and $125,000 in attorney fees)
Topic: Employment Law
Sub topic: F.E.H.A.
Sub-sub topic: ADA
Attorneys:
Plaintiff- Lee Feldman, Law Offices of Lee Feldman, Los Angeles
Defendant- Confidential
Facts: Plaintiff was an 18-year-employee of defendant aerospace company with no history of disciplinary or performance related problems. The plaintiff suffered a disabling low back condition in the mid-1980s, which defendant accommodated for 10 years. In the fall of 1997, defendant began moving operations from one plant to another, necessitating layoffs in some departments. Plaintiff's department was required to cut one of its four maintenance technicians. Although defendant sought to transfer plaintiff to the new plant, and the transfer requisition was submitted and approved by management, the offer of transfer was withdrawn after plaintiff re-injured his back in November 1997. The plaintiff was laid off on April 1, 1998. Two weeks later, a maintenance employee resigned from the new plant. That position was filled by a new employee who applied for the opening. The position was not offered to plaintiff. In the 16 months thereafter, defendant hired two more applicants "off the street" for positions identical to the one into which plaintiff was supposed to transfer.
Contentions: The plaintiff contended that the defendant singled out plaintiff as the individual whose job should be eliminated despite the fact that two other technicians had less seniority, and none of the other objective criterion contained in defendant's written "reduction in-force" policy supported the selection of plaintiff for layoff. The plaintiff further contended that the reason for his selection for lay-off, and for the decision to withdraw the transfer offer, was that defendant wanted to rid itself of an employee who was limited in his ability to perform heavy lifting functions. The plaintiff claimed that "but for" his physical limitations, he would not have been laid off. The plaintiff also claimed that his back condition was a disability within the meaning of the ADA and FEHA and that he was qualified to continue performing his job with the same reasonable
accommodations that were made for 10 years. The defendant argued that plaintiff was laid off because his specialized skill, welding, was no longer needed at the old plant, while the specialized skills of the remaining maintenance employees were still needed. The defendant asserted that it had legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for all of its actions. The defendant initially claimed the transfer was withdrawn for budgetary reasons, but later claimed that plaintiff's own lack of enthusiasm for the move prompted the withdrawal.
Settlement Discussions: Per plaintiff, the plaintiff initially demanded $150,000 plus reinstatement. Later, the plaintiff demanded $425,000 without reinstatement. The defendant made no offers until the mediation that resulted in the reported settlement. Per defendant, the plaintiff made only $425,000 demand.
Mediation: A mediation was held on Feb. 14, 2000 before Kenneth Cloke, resulting in the reported settlement.
|
