HOMEOWNER'S NEGLIGENCE. $______ RECOVERY

• Pages: 11-12

EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY

$98,400 VERDICT

Employer’s Liability –Gay worker subjected to

hostile work environment –Defendant’sverdicton

claim for unlawful termination –Court

subsequently awards $150,000 for attorneys’

fees.

Essex County, NJ

In this NJ LAD case, the homosexual plaintiff

employee brought suit for sexual orientation

discrimination and unlawful termination by the

defendant former employer and one of its

managers. The defendant denied the

discrimination claims, and insisted that the

plaintiff had been terminated for violation of an

injury policy.

The plaintiff, a homosexual employee of an airline

maintenance/servicing company, contended that a

hostile work environment was created by frequent

anti-homosexual comments and conduct of a man-

ager. The plaintiff maintained that the harassment

occurred from the time his supervisor realized he was

gay in 11/06 until his termination in 9/07, causing se-

vere emotional distress (including depression and Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder). The plaintiff also con-

tended that the harassing manager, who did not ulti-

mately terminate the plaintiff, caused others in the

company to terminate his employment. The plaintiff

presented two non-party corroborating witnesses as

to the harassment and the company’slackof

response to complaints of discrimination.

The defendant denied that the plaintiff was subjected

to a hostile work environment. The defendant also

questioned the credibility of the plaintiff and his sex-

ual orientation, pointing out that he was married

twice in the past. The defendant further denied that

the alleged discrimination was causally related to the

termination. The defendant contended that the plain-

tiff, who waited a day to report an on-the-job injury to

his eye, was terminated for failing comply with a pol-

icy requirement that an employee report an on-the-

job injury “immediately”.

In addition to a charge for hostile work environment,

the court instructed the jury under the so-called “Cat’s

paw”theory of liability. Under this theory, which was

recently recognized by the United States Supreme

Court, a jury may find the termination was motivated

by discrimination - even though the individual making

the termination decision was not motivated by dis-

criminatory animus –if another person acted with dis-

criminatory intent to cause the termination to occur.

The jury found for the plaintiff on the hostile work envi-

ronment claim and awarded $98,400 for emotional

distress damages. The jury found for the defendant

on the illegal termination claim. The court subse-

quently awarded $150,000 in attorneys’fees and

costs.

REFERENCE

Coronado vs. Accufleet. Docket no. ESX-L-7908-08;

Judge Ned Rosenberg, 03-18-11.

Attorney for plaintiff: Adam J. Kleinfeldt of Ginarte

O’Dwyer Gonzalez Gallardo & Winograd, LLP in

Newark, NJ.

HOMEOWNER’S NEGLIGENCE

$190,000 RECOVERY

Homeowner’s Negligence –Plaintiff water meter

reader falls upon stepping into hole on side of

house camouflaged by ivy –Tear of posterior horn

of medial meniscus superimposed on prior knee

injuries –Need for knee replacement surgery.

Monmouth County, NJ

The plaintiff, in his early 50s, working as a water

meter reader, contended that the defendant

homeowner negligently failed to conduct

reasonable inspections and discover a hole on the

side of the house that was concealed by ivy. The

plaintiff contended that as a result, he stepped

into the hole and sustained a tear of the posterior

horn of the medial meniscus. The defendant

conceded that her dog frequently digs into the soil

around the residence, creating holes, but

contended that the plaintiff should have walked

more carefully and observe the condition.

The plaintiff had sustained a meniscal tear to the

same knee and underwent a right knee arthroscopy

in 2003. He also suffered a knee injury in February

2004 that the plaintiff caused a temporary aggrava-

tion. The plaintiff contended that because of the sub-

ject injury, he required knee replacement surgery,

missing several months from work. The plaintiff con-

tended that he will permanently suffer pain and swell-

ing that is heightened upon spending extensive time

on his feet.

The plaintiff maintained that he will require physical

therapy in the future, and will nonetheless be perma-

nently restricted in his activities. The defendant main-

tained that any continuing complaints stemmed from

VERDICTS BY CATEGORY 11

New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now