Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
Decision Date | 19 May 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 35896.,35896. |
Citation | 115 A.3d 1143,31 A.D. Cases 1065,157 Conn.App. 312 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Michael TOMICK v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al. |
Michael C. Harrington, with whom were Stella Szantova Giordano and, on the brief, Jennifer A. Corvo, Hartford, for the appellant-appellee (named defendant).
Michael D. Colonese, Norwich, with whom, on the brief, was Cassie N. Jameson, for the appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
Marc P. Mercier filed a brief for the Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
Charles Krich, principal attorney, filed a brief for the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities as amicus curiae.
DiPENTIMA, C.J., and BEACH and PRESCOTT, Js.
This employment discrimination case returns to this court following our remand to the trial court for a determination of the “date of the adverse employment decision” and whether the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential duties of his position at that time. Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 Conn.App. 589, 613, 43 A.3d 722 (Tomick I ), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 920, 47 A.3d 389 (2012). We instructed the court that it was “not precluded from reconsidering the issue of which analytical framework should be applied and what each framework requires the plaintiff to establish to make out a prima facie case.” Id., at 613 n. 17, 43 A.3d 722. On appeal, the defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.,1 argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a directed verdict because the plaintiff, Michael Tomick, failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination pursuant to General Statutes § 46a–60.2 Specifically, the defendant claims that the court erred in finding that (1) the adverse employment action occurred on December 1 or 2, 2004, and (2) the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job on that date. In his cross appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly set aside the award of punitive damages on the ground that such an award was not authorized by General Statutes § 46a–104. We affirm the judgment of the court.
The plaintiff brought this employment discrimination action against the defendant, claiming, inter alia, that the defendant terminated his employment in violation of § 46a–60 (count six). The facts that the jury reasonably could have found were set forth by this court in Tomick I and are as follows: The plaintiff worked as a package car driver for the defendant. “On January 3, 2003, the plaintiff suffered a back injury during the course of his employment. He received a 13 percent permanent disability of his lumbar spine. The plaintiff took a leave of absence until November, 2003, when he returned to work with no restrictions.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
...affirming the trial court's decision to set aside a jury award of $500,000 in statutory punitive damages against the defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.3 Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 157 Conn.App. 312, 115 A.3d 1143 (2015) (Tomick II ). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the ......
-
Rossova v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC
...802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), and its progeny." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 157 Conn. App. 312, 325, 115 A.3d 1143 (2015), aff'd, 324 Conn. 470, 153 A.3d 615 (2016). Under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. burden shifting analysis, t......
-
Vera v. Alstom Power, Inc.
...Vera agrees to remit the award to $50,000.The jury awarded punitive damages under Title VII only. See Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 157 Conn.App. 312, 341, 115 A.3d 1143 (2015) (punitive damages are not recoverable under CFEPA). Punitive damages are appropriate under Title VII if th......
-
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
...award of statutory punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 to the plaintiff, Michael Tomick. See Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 157 Conn. App. 312, 341, 115 A.3d 1143 (2015). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.2 I agree with the majority's statement of the background facts and p......
-
Survey of Developments in Labor and Employment Law
...[172] Id. at 486. [173] Id. at 487. [174] Id. at 488. [175] Id. at 494. [176] Id. at 498. [177] Id. at 502. [178] Id. at 505. [179] 157 Conn.App. 312, 115 A.3d 1143 (2015). [180] Id. at 334. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, limited to the following issues: "1. Did the Ap......