 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pulcino v. Federal Express Corp.3/1/1999
unions and union organizing which FedEx distributed to its managers since January 1, 1988." FedEx argued that this request was overly broad. Although the trial court denied this request without comment, it apparently agreed. CR 26(b)(1) provides that a party "may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . ."
Again, it seems that the court's decision to deny this request was based on its erroneous determination that Pulcino's claim should be limited to wrongful termination from her handler position. Because we have held that Pulcino's claim includes wrongful coercion and interference, FedEx's communications with managers about its employees' union affiliations are relevant, especially given Bailey's testimony that he placed Pulcino in a handler position because that was "the information {he} got," from an unnamed supervisor. The communications Pulcino sought were not unduly burdensome given the scope of this case. The discovery, subject to any appropriate limitations, should be permitted on remand.
Pulcino also claims that FedEx's discovery abuses warrant a new trial under CR 59(a). In determining whether there is a discovery violation under CR 26(g), "the court should consider all of the surrounding circumstances, the importance of the evidence to its proponent, and the ability of the opposing party to formulate a response or to comply with the request." Pulcino alleges FedEx abused discovery rules in three instances. First, in an effort to find similarly situated FAs, she requested the last known addresses and phone numbers of the furloughed FAs. FedEx initially refused this request, but after a rule 26(i) conference, it produced a list of addresses. But the list gave no residential addresses and had the same Los Angeles FedEx station address and phone number for 209 of the 250 FAs, many of whom had never worked in Los Angeles. For instance, Billye Senseman, an FA who Pulcino located on her own, was involved in litigation with FedEx at the time of the request, but FedEx provided the Los Angeles address for Senseman even though she had never worked there. Pulcino points out that in the 1992 NMB proceeding, FedEx claimed that it had two lists of residential addresses and phone numbers for flight crew members.
Second, Pulcino asked FedEx to identify the document which provided that FAs should be treated as external candidates for FedEx jobs. FedEx provided several vague answers, including "the Agreement . . . speaks for itself," the "union flatly rejected the offer that they be considered internal candidates for these positions," and that "post-contract negotiations" provided for this compromise, but provided no tangible evidence of any of these contradictory statements.
And third, in response to Pulcino's repeated requests for the FA handbook, FedEx's attorney assured the trial court, "It's on its way. . . . {W}e have found a flight attendant's handbook, it's being overnighted, should arrive today. It will be turned over. . . . We'll get it here as soon as possible . . . ." The handbook never arrived. Pulcino points out that she had no way of obtaining it because the FAs were required to return their handbooks in order to receive their last paycheck, and that FedEx's continued assertions about the legitimacy of its decision to treat FAs as external candidates were partially based on this handbook. These examples demonstrate that FedEx made it extremely difficult for Pulcino to access the information she needed to develop her claim. We direct the trial court to order production of these documents on remand.
2. Disability Discrimination Claim
Pulcino next c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|