Chopra v. General Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 04cv358 (WWE).,04cv358 (WWE). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Uday CHOPRA and Pramod K. Srivastava, co-executors of the estate of Hemant K. Mody, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant. |
Scott R. Lucas, Claire E. Ryan, Martin, Lucas & Chioffi, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiff Hemant K. Mody PH.D.
Grace Han, GE Consumer & Industrial, Plainville, CT, Richard Voigt, Robert J. Gallo, II, McCarter & English, Hartford, CT, Jenny L. Stewart, Patrick W. Shea, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Stamford, CT, for Defendant.
Amended Ruling on Post-Trial Motion For Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial or Remittitur1
In this action, plaintiff Hemant Mody alleged that defendant General Electric Company ("GE") had engaged in retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA"), and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").
This case was tried to a jury on July 10 through 14, and July 17 and 18, 2006. On July 18, 2006, the jury rendered its answers to the special verdict form in favor of the plaintiff on his claims of retaliation based on race, national origin, and age, and against plaintiff on his claim of retaliation based on the FMLA. The jury found that plaintiff should be awarded $591,423 in back pay, $500,000 in compensatory damages, and $10 million in punitive damages. Additionally, the jury determined that plaintiff was entitled to an award of liquidated damages due to a willful violation of the ADEA. The Court subsequently amended the back pay to $652,768, and awarded $730,406 in front pay and $626,171 in liquidated damages. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for an amount totaling $12,509,345.
Defendant now moves for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur.
The following briefly summarizes the factual background that is relevant to this ruling.
At the time of trial, plaintiff Hemant Mody was a male over the age of fifty years of Asian Pacific origin, who suffered from severe chronic renal disease, requiring daily treatment of dialysis. In 1988 he was hired by GE Industrial Systems ("GEIS"), a subsidiary of defendant General Electric Company, as a Chief Engineer in New Products Innovation ("NPI"). The Chief Engineer was a Senior Professional Band position, which is subordinate to the Executive Band and Senior Executive Band ("E-Band" or "Senior E-Band") positions at GE.
In 2001, plaintiff came under the supervision of Don McDonald, the Manager of NPI. On July 18, 2002, Mody met with McDonald to discuss his performance evaluation. McDonald ranked Mody in the top 20% of all GE employees. However, when Dr. Mody discussed promotion to E-Band, McDonald informed him that he was on a "technical" career path and could not be promoted beyond the Senior Professional Band. According to McDonald, plaintiff could only be promoted to the E-Band or Senior E-Band by taking an entry level "managerial" path position. This response frustrated and angered Mody because he had noted that younger non-Indian individuals were promoted into the E-Band or Senior E-Band positions regardless of whether they had started on a "technical" or "managerial" career path.
On July 22, 2002, Mody issued a memorandum complaining of discrimination to Thomas Lavalle, Head of Human Resources, and to Chris Fuselier, the General Manager of Plainville. As result of his complaint, Mody met with Mr. Lavalle on August 2, 2002. In a memorandum dated August 12, 2002, Lavalle responded to Mody's complaint, stating that Mody had failed to provide any facts to support his allegations of discrimination.
In September through November, McDonald, Lavalle and Fuselier monitored Mody's attendance and timeliness. Mody's arrival at work was delayed due to his need for dialysis, although he accounted for his missed work hours with vacation time. Nevertheless, McDonald informed Mody that he was absent or tardy too often and also complained to Mody about his lack of output. At the same time, Mody experienced a reduction in his role in the project that he had created entitled the Magic Panel, and he was denied attendance at an Asian Pacific American Forum conference.
On October 10, 2002, McDonald gave plaintiff a poor review and a critical evaluation.
On October 29, 2002, McDonald asked Mody to arrive at work no later than 8:00 a.m., which had not been required of plaintiff prior to his complaint. That same day, Mody complained to Human Resources by e-mail of discrimination and retaliation.
On October 30, 2002, McDonald created write-ups of alleged performance and attendance issues for placement in Mody's personnel file.
In October and November, Mody also attempted to transfer to another department. Fuselier informed him that he was not eligible to transfer because he had not been in his position for two years.
At the end of October, McDonald and Lavalle worked with in-house counsel Grace Hahn to put Mody on a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP").
In November 2002, Lavalle refused to permit Mody to attend the GE leadership conference. Mody was also required to put together a task list to justify his position.
On December 10, 2002, Heather Pugliese, a younger, more junior co-worker, e-mailed Mody to request that he contact the Department of Energy to gauge interest in funding for the Magic Panel project. Mody, who viewed this task as menial and inappropriate, refused to comply with this request.
By December 12, 2002, McDonald had removed Mody from having meaningful responsibility on projects, including the Magic Panel that Mody had created, and on that date, Mody complained in writing of discrimination and retaliation to McDonald, Lavalle and Fuselier. Mody also complained to Lloyd Trotter, the division President.
That same day, Lavalle responded to Mody, stating that he needed more specific details of alleged discrimination and retaliation prior to an investigation. McDonald and Lavalle both reprimanded Mody for refusing to perform work requested of him by Pugliese.
On December 13, 2002, Mody took a leave of absence due to symptoms of stress. On January 8, 2003, GE decided to pay Mody the minimum allowable under its disability plan rather than to accord him the full disability benefits.
In a January 21 e-mail, McDonald wrote Lavalle: Lavalle responded:
On February 24, 2002, McDonald instructed Mody to contact the Department of Energy by 3:00 p.m. that day. McDonald explained that failure to follow his instructions would result in disciplinary action for insubordination.
Mody complained to Fuselier and David Foster, who had replaced Lavalle as Human Resources Manager for Technology, that this action requesting that he make a phone call to the Department of Energy was retaliatory. Fuselier and Foster advised Mody that he should perform the work directed by McDonald unless the requested work was "illegal, unethical or immoral." Foster also suggested that Mody resign rather than be suspended or terminated for insubordination.
Thereafter, Mody was suspended without pay, and he was instructed to return his access card and all company property. No investigation into Mody's charges of retaliation and discrimination was conducted.
On February 27, 2003, Mody sent McDonald an e-mail complaining that he had been subjected to discrimination and retaliation and that he intended to return to work.
On March 5, 2003, McDonald sent Mody a letter stating that Mody would be terminated for cause if he did not return to work by Friday, March 7, 2003. The letter was sent by Federal Express but, due to an error in the address, Mody did not receive the letter until March 10, 2003.
Mody did not return to work or contact anyone at GE. On April 4, 2003, McDonald sent Mody a letter notifying him that his employment had been terminated, retroactively effective to March 7, 2003, because of his insubordination and job abandonment.
Subsequent to entry of the judgment in this case, Mody suffered a heart attack and passed away.
As an initial matter, the Court must determine if Mody's death after entry of judgment has an impact on the survival of his claims. It is well established that, in general, "an action is not abated by the death of a party after the cause has reached a verdict or final judgment and while the judgment stands, even where the judgment is based on a cause of action that would not have survived had the party died before judgment." 1 Am-Jur.2d Abatement, Survival and Revival § 58 (2005); See The Lafayette, 269 F. 917, 927 (2d Cir.1920); Howard v. Wilbur, 166 F.2d 884, 885 (6th Cir.1948); Bornstein v. Boucher Agency, Inc., 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 121, 122-123, 245 A.2d 296 (1968).2
Defendant argues that the plaintiffs claims for punitive and liquidated damages abated upon his death. Defendant cites numerous authorities, which concern the abatement of actions in which the plaintiff died prior to judgment. Defendant submits that the timely filing of the post-judgment motion compromises the finality of the judgment in this matter. In support of this assertion, defendant advances precedent that concern the effect of a post-judgment motion as a practical matter upon filing deadlines or perfection of a lien. It is well settled that a pending postjudgment motion to alter or ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours And Co.
...plaintiff may choose to either accept a remittitur, or submit to a new trial only as to punitive damages. See Chopra v. General Elec. Co., 527 F.Supp.2d 230, 246-47 (D.Conn.2007) (“If plaintiff does not accept the remittitur, the Court shall vacate the punitive damages award and conduct a n......
-
Turley v. Isg Lackawanna, Inc.
...sheriff's deputy was “shunned” by colleagues and mistreated for supporting an opposing candidate for sheriff); Chopra v. Gen. Elec. Co., 527 F.Supp.2d 230, 247 (D.Conn.2007) (sustaining award of $500,000 in non-economic damages where retaliatory actions by employer caused extreme stress and......
-
Turley v. Isg Lackawanna, Inc.
...sheriff's deputy was “shunned” by colleagues and mistreated for supporting an opposing candidate for sheriff); Chopra v. Gen. Elec. Co., 527 F.Supp.2d 230, 247 (D.Conn.2007) (sustaining award of $500,000 in non-economic damages where retaliatory actions by employer caused extreme stress and......
-
Conservation Com.m'n of the Town of Fairfield v. Red 11, LLC.
...v. D & L Tractor Trailer School, 117 Conn.App. 680, 704 n. 19, 981 A.2d 497 (2009) (citing with approval Chopra v. General Electric Co., 527 F.Supp.2d 230, 251–52 (D.Conn.2007), which states that a party may recover attorney's fees for unsuccessful claims if they are “inexplicably intertwin......