Ventresco v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company6/13/2002
Suffolk.
April 12, 2002
Anti-Discrimination Law, Age. Employment, Discrimination. Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury, Burden of proof, Interest. Pension. Damages, Future damages, Interest. Interest.
The plaintiff, James V. Ventresco, brought this action in March, 1998, alleging that the defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), had laid him off from his employment with Liberty in September, 1996, because of his age, in violation of G.áL. c.á151B, §á4. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded him $201,100 in compensatory damages, including $21,500 in back pay, $14,400 in front pay, $140,200 in lost pension benefits and $25,000 for emotional distress. The jury further determined that because Liberty had acted with knowledge or reason to know it was violating the law against age discrimination, their award of compensatory damages therefore should be doubled to $402,200. See G.áL. c.á151B, §á9. Acting on Liberty's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, the judge ordered that a new trial would be held unless the plaintiff accepted a remittitur of $150,992, to which the plaintiff agreed. The plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs and received an award of $95,000 and $1,903, respectively. A final judgment then entered accordingly.
On appeal from the judgment, Liberty claims that (1)áa new trial is necessary because the judge erred in instructing the jury that they must find for the plaintiff if he simply proved "pretext," relieving him of his burden of proving discrimination; (2)áthe award of lost pension benefits was improper because there was insufficient evidence that, but for his layoff, the plaintiff would have remained employed at Liberty until he was sixty-five years old and, in any event, any such finding by the jury was inconsistent with their award of only $14,400 in front pay; and (3)áthe plaintiff was improperly allowed prejudgment interest on the entire award, including the portions for front pay and lost pension benefits. We agree that prejudgment interest should not have been allowed on the portions of the jury's award for front pay and lost pension benefits and, accordingly, we order that the judgment be modified to provide prejudgment interest only on those portions of the judgment representing amounts for back pay and emotional distress damages. We otherwise affirm.
Background facts. The plaintiff was initially hired by Liberty as an employee in its mailroom in the fall of 1963, which was shortly after the plaintiff had completed high school. The plaintiff left his employment in 1965, but then he returned in November, 1972, after he had completed college and service in the United States Army. The plaintiff thereafter continued as an employee of Liberty until his layoff in September, 1996.
In February or March, 1973, the plaintiff was offered and accepted a position as a production assistant in Liberty's advertising and public relations department. He was subsequently promoted to the position of production manager and, ultimately, in 1983 to the position of director of production services. As director of production services, the plaintiff was responsible for overseeing and coordinating the department's print production projects, including the company's annual report and also its periodic newsletters and magazines. He was also responsible for tracking progress on these projects and monitoring the expenses incurred in completing them. The plaintiff reported directly to Whitney Lancaster, who was the head of the advertising and public relations department.
The plaintiff regularly received annual performance evaluations while he was employed as direc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|