Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Industries Inc.2/26/1998
Handicapped Persons. Anti-Discrimination Law, Handicap, Prima facie case, Termination of employment. Employment, Discrimination, Termination. Statute, Construction. Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury, Presumptions and burden of proof, Damages. Workers' Compensation Act, Claim. Evidence, Relevancy and materiality. Damages, Punitive. Americans with Disabilities Act.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 31, 1993.
The case was tried before Carol S. Ball, J., and posttrial motions were heard by her.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.
We clarify today the prima facie standard a plaintiff must meet to establish liability in a case involving a claim of handicap discrimination in violation of G. L. c. 151B, Section 4 (16). The defendant, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (Mass.) (BFI), appeals from a jury verdict that it unlawfully fired the plaintiff, Brian A. Dartt, because of a handicap, an earlier work-related injury to his back. BFI maintained that Dartt's prior injury played no role in its decision to terminate him, and that he was terminated because he was grossly negligent when a BFI tractor-trailer that he was operating flipped over. The jury awarded Dartt $83,000 in back pay, $16,000 in emotional distress damages, and $175,000 in punitive damages. BFI filed posttrial motions and Dartt filed a motion for attorney's fees. After a hearing, the Judge denied BFI's motions and awarded Dartt substantially all of his attorney's fees. We granted BFI's application for direct appellate review.
We rule that to establish a prima facie case of unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of handicap under G. L. c. 151B, Section 4 (16), a plaintiff must present credible evidence that (1) he is handicapped within the meaning of the statute; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) he was terminated or otherwise subject to an adverse action by his employer; and (4) the position he had occupied remained open and the employer sought to fill it. See Beal v. Selectmen of Hingham, 419 Mass. 535, 541 (1995). See also Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437, 441 (1995). It is not a requirement that a plaintiff show, as part of his prima facie case, that he was terminated "solely" because of his handicap. In this case the Judge's instructions were generally consistent with these requirements. We nevertheless conclude that a new trial is required because two of the Judge's rulings, described below, constitute prejudicial error. We also conclude that Dartt presented insufficient evidence to support the punitive damages awarded to him.
I.
From 1985 until 1992 when he was terminated, Dartt was employed by BFI as a truck driver, first in Colorado and later in Tyngsborough. Dartt operated a ten-wheel tractor-trailer used to transport and dump large loads of waste. In March, 1990, Dartt injured his back when he fell from a trailer while attempting to secure a canvas flap. BFI's safety review board determined that Dartt was not at fault for that accident. As a result of his injury, Dartt was required to undergo two operations and he was unable to work for almost two years. BFI paid Dartt $61,389 in workers' compensation benefits for that injury.
On May 19, 1992, approximately two months after returning to full-time work, Dartt had another accident that precipitated this lawsuit. On that day, the vehicle that Dartt was operating flipped over while he was dumping a load of sludge at a landfill in Rochester, New Hampshire. After he had backed the vehicle to an appropr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|