Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility, 81 C 229.
Decision Date | 26 May 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81 C 229.,81 C 229. |
Parties | Michael THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. RESORT HEALTH RELATED FACILITY, Jacqueline Kornegay, Monica Brown and Morris Tenanbaum, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Cuthbert J. Barry, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.
Frank A. Romano, New York City, for defendants.
Plaintiff, a black male originally from Granada, West Indies, brought this action to redress alleged discrimination in employment, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1976). Invoking federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(4) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), the complaint alleged that plaintiff's employer, Resort Health Related Facility ("Resort"), and the individual defendants Kornegay, Brown and Tenanbaum, supervisory and administrative personnel employed by Resort, discriminated against plaintiff during his employment at Resort because of his race, color, national origin and sex.
Plaintiff worked for Resort as a personal care attendant from June 1975 to February 5, 1980, when he was informed of his suspension from work until a psychiatric evaluation could be obtained. This decision apparently grew out of plaintiff's discordant relations with a Resort nurse, Delores Charles. Allegedly, Resort refused to accept an evaluation plaintiff submitted, favorable to himself, and insisted that a Dr. Gold examine him. Plaintiff refused to undergo this examination, and he has not worked for Resort since February 1980. His complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, reinstatement, back pay, and $200,000 in money damages for mental anguish, humiliation and loss of self respect.
The action is now before the court upon several motions by defendants: (1) to strike plaintiff's jury demand, or, in the alternative, to bifurcate trial of liability and damages issues; (2) for a partial summary judgment limiting the period of plaintiff's potential back pay recovery to the date when plaintiff rejected defendants' unconditional offer of reinstatement, or if that is denied, to disqualify present counsel for the parties as witnesses who ought to testify at trial under N.Y. Judiciary Law, Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 5-102(A); and (3) to dismiss plaintiff's claims of sex and national origin discrimination asserted under both Title VII and § 1981. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion to strike the jury demand and to bifurcate the trial are denied, the back pay period is limited to the date when plaintiff rejected defendant's reinstatement offer, the motion to disqualify is denied, the national origin claim is limited to Title VII, and the sex discrimination claims are dismissed.
In moving to strike plaintiff's jury demand, defendants have viewed the complaint as seeking essentially equitable relief (reinstatement and back pay) under both Title VII and § 1981. Further, defendants have relegated the claim for damages for mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation to State tort law, on the ground that neither of the federal statutes involved permits recovery of such damages. Contending that plaintiff added this latter claim as an "afterthought" without factual support, merely to justify demanding a jury trial, defendants argue that established precedent denying a jury trial in "equitable" Title VII and § 1981 proceedings should not be evaded so transparently and that the action must be tried to the court.
Although some courts have accepted such arguments in denying a request for a jury trial, e.g., Lynch v. Pan American World Airways, 475 F.2d 764, 765 (5th Cir. 1973) ( ), see also Seymore v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., 493 F.Supp. 257, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y.1980), careful consideration of the complaint and relevant authorities demonstrates that plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial in this case.
The basic flaw in defendants' argument is that their reading of the complaint needlessly divorces the claim for psychological damages from federal law. While such damages may be unavailable in a Title VII proceeding, see, e.g., Whitney v. Greater New York Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists, 401 F.Supp. 1363, 1370 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), controlling and persuasive precedent indicates that they are a proper element of recovery in an action under § 1981, and remain such when a plaintiff joins claims under Title VII with the claims under § 1981.
The Supreme Court in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975), held "that § 1981 affords a federal remedy against discrimination in private employment on the basis of race." 421 U.S. at 459-60, 95 S.Ct. at 1719-20. And the Court declared that whoever "establishes a cause of action under § 1981 is entitled to both legal and equitable relief, including compensatory and, under certain circumstances, punitive damages." Id. 421 U.S. at 460, 95 S.Ct. at 1720. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that "the remedies available under Title VII and under § 1981, although related and although directed to most of the same ends, are separate, distinct, and independent." 421 U.S. at 461, 95 S.Ct. at 1720. Accord, Claiborne v. Illinois Central R.R., 583 F.2d 143, 153-54 (5th Cir. 1978) ( ).
The Supreme Court's later affirmance noted without questioning, only that the award had been made. 427 U.S. at 166 n. 4, 96 S.Ct. at 2592 n. 4. See Seaton v. Sky Realty Co., 491 F.2d 634, 637-38 (7th Cir. 1974) ( ).1
While the Court cautioned that not every "award of monetary relief must necessarily be `legal' relief," id., 415 U.S. at 196, 94 S.Ct. at 1009, it readily concluded that the statutory discrimination claim before it, seeking compensatory damages under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3612, was not equitable. Grounded in a prohibition of racial discrimination, the statutory claim could be likened to various common law tort actions, id., 415 U.S. at 195 & n. 10, 94 S.Ct. at 1009 & n. 10. "More important," the nature of the compensatory relief sought was "the traditional form of relief offered in the courts of law," viz., "actual and punitive damages." 415 U.S. at 196, 94 S.Ct. at 1009. Such damages, of course, are precisely the relief the Court sanctioned for §§ 1981 and 1982 claims in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, supra.
Defendants have adduced nothing to establish that plaintiff did not suffer emotional harm as alleged, and their motion for summary judgment is therefore inadequate to remove this issue from the complaint. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-61, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1609-10, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to have a jury determine the fact issues relating to his claim of employment discrimination under § 1981. Although some of these fact issues also pertain to plaintiff's claims under Title VII, the decisions in Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959), and Dairy Queen Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962), require that any such issues be submitted to the jury prior to final court determination of equitable relief under Title VII.
One further matter requires consideration in defining the issues to be submitted to the jury. This is whether plaintiff has presented a "lega...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LL B Sheet 1, LLC v. Loskutoff
...Hutton v. City of Fairbanks , No. 4:08-CV-00029 RRB, 2012 WL 13032925, at *1 (D. Alaska Oct. 16, 2012) ; Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility , 539 F.Supp. 630, 638 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). However, it seems that Defendant intends to use this evidence to prove that Plaintiff should have rescind......
-
Smith v. United Technologies, Essex Group, Inc., Wire and Cable Div., 59029
...604 F.Supp. at 888-89; Davis v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 584 F.Supp. 870, 871 (E.D.Pa.1984). See also Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility, 539 F.Supp. 630, 634 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (jury trial warranted in § 1981 action even where reinstatement and back pay The opinions which accompanied the......
-
Beesley v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
...related solely to the Title VII claim, as well as the appropriate equitable remedy, are issues for the court. Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility, 539 F.Supp. 630, 634, 31 FEP 65, 67 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (Title VII and § 1981); Powell v. Pennsylvania Hous. Fin. Agency, 563 F.Supp. 419, 420, ......
-
Beckett v. Atlas Air, Inc.
...143, 151-53 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (Seybert, J.); Hodges, 714 F.Supp. at 77; Maas, 676 F.Supp. at 226; Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility, 539 F.Supp. 630, 635-36 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (Neaher, J.) (42 U.S.C. § 1981 back pay claim not tied to reinstatement is For the reasons articulated above, defen......
-
Constructive discharge
...took and passed exam a few months earlier), cert. denied , 464 U.S. 992 (1983). But see Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility , 539 F. Supp. 630, 638 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (finding employer made valid unconditional offer of reinstatement to Title VII claimant); Ridgely Mfg. Co. v. NLRB , 510 F......
-
Constructive Discharge
...took and passed exam a few months earlier), cert. denied , 464 U.S. 992 (1983). But see Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility , 539 F. Supp. 630, 638 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (finding employer made valid unconditional offer of reinstatement to Title VII claimant); Ridgely Mfg. Co. v. NLRB , 510 F......
-
Case Evaluation & Prelitigation Considerations
...Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 408. This argument is routinely rejected by the courts. See Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility , 539 F.Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y., 1982) (offer extended by counsel during settlement discussions not barred by Rule 408, purpose of unconditional offer of reinstat......
-
Table of cases
...2000), §24:5.D.4.d Thomas v. Porter , 761 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1988), §18:2.A Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility , 539 F. Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), §4:3.B.2.c Thomas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co ., 144 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 1998), §23:3.A.3.d Thomas v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Ju......