$______ VERDICT INCLUDING $______ IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES - CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION - RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN WORKPLACE - EMPLOYMENT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN MACHINE OPERATOR ILLEGALLY TERMINATED.

• Pages: 4-5

Attorneys for plaintiff: Laura Carlin Mattiacci, Caren

N. Gurmankin, Kevin Console and Ortal Mendelawe

of Console, Mattiacci Law, LLC in Philadelphia, PA.

COMMENTARY

The plaintiff in this workplace discrimination action was able to

show that he was by far the oldest of his peers and one of only two

Americans under the supervision of the particular Israeli manager

in question. The timing of the plaintiff’s employment termination

may also have been an important factor in the plaintiff’s victory.

Evidence showed that the plaintiff was terminated shortly after he

complained about the discrimination based on his age and

national origin.

The plaintiff contended that remarks made by the manager in

question made it clear that, in the defendant’s Israel headquarters,

age was a legitimate factor in making employment decisions. How-

ever, plaintiff’s counsel emphasized that international companies,

such as the defendant, must comply with American employment

laws regarding discrimination in the workplace.

Punitive damages are capped at $300,000 under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, plaintiff’s counsel is reportedly

seeking the full amount of the $5,000,000 punitive damages award

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

$849,960 VERDICT INCLUDING $750,000 IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES – CIVIL RIGHTS

VIOLATION – RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN WORKPLACE – EMPLOYMENT OF

AFRICAN-AMERICAN MACHINE OPERATOR ILLEGALLY TERMINATED.

U.S.D.C. - Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This action was brought under Section 1981 of the

Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 alleging racial discrimination in

the workplace. The plaintiff contended that his

employment was terminated by the defendant due

to his African-American race. The defendant

denied the allegations and maintained that its

decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment

was based on legitimate business reasons that

had nothing to do with his race or color.

The plaintiff was a union punch press operator who

was laid off by the defendant’s newly-hired plant

manager, purportedly because the plaintiff was low-

est in seniority. The plaintiff had worked at the defen-

dant company for approximately ten months. He

filed a union grievance, but the union did not move

forward with the grievance.

Evidence showed the defendant employed a total of

60-65 employees at its Pennsylvania plant, three of

which were African-American or Black. The other two

African-American or Black employees were also ter-

minated by the defendant within a few days of the

plaintiff’s lay-off. One of the other African-American or

Black employees terminated testified that he was

forced to quit by the defendant’s new plant manager

because his work hours were cut nearly in half after

he approached the new plant manager about modi-

fying his schedule. The defense claimed that the

other African-American or Black employee was also

laid off because he was “Lowest in seniority.”

The plaintiff contended that there were at least four

non-African American or non-Black employees who

were hired after the plaintiff was hired (and were

therefore, lower in seniority than the plaintiff). Docu-

ments established that one of the more recent hires

was a White man who was hired shortly after the new

plant manager was hired.

The defendant’s witnesses alleged that all the three

African-American employees at issue, including the

plaintiff, were terminated because of poor job perfor-

mance and bad attendance records. The defense

additionally alleged that the plaintiff had a problem

with alcohol. The plaintiff countered that he was

never written up for any of his alleged performance,

attendance or drinking problems. The plaintiff and his

wife testified that plaintiff did not have a drinking

problem.

The defendant’s CEO testified that the plaintiff was

not written up for his infractions because the com-

pany did not write up employees. However, the plain-

tiff produced multiple documents and witnesses who

provided proof to the contrary; including the new

plant manager, who testified that he regularly wrote-

up employees based on the company’s progressive

disciplinary policy.

The jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of

$849,960, including $750,000 in punitive damages.

REFERENCE

Watson vs. Lloyd Industries, Inc. Case no. 17-DV-1049;

Judge Michael M. Baylson, 11-14-18.

Attorney for plaintiff: Samuel A. Dion of Dion &

Goldberger in Philadelphia, PA.

COMMENTARY

The burden of establishing racial discrimination in the workplace is

often difficult as there is frequently a lack of concrete evidence to

prove the case. However, plaintiff’s counsel in this action was able

to show that the defendant fired the only three African-Americans

among the 60-65 total employees who worked at the defendant’s

plant, and this statistical evidence help establish the discrimination.

The defense position was that the plaintiff was laid off because he

was lowest in seniority and he could not perform the job of employ-

ees with lower seniority. However this defense was negated by evi-

dence that the plaintiff clearly was not lowest in seniority and

certainly could perform the jobs of those other employees with

lower seniority.

Furthermore, the defendant’s CEO alleged that he was aware the

plaintiff had an alcohol problem and further alleged that he

smelled alcohol on the plaintiff’s breath, but allowed him to oper-

ate heavy machinery anyway. Under rigorous cross-examination,

the CEO asserted that the plaintiff could operate the machinery be-

cause it was easy, but then admitted that the plaintiff operating the

4 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

Volume 37, Issue 2, January 2019 Subscribe Now