GATTI V. COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF GREENE COUNTY, INC. 263 F.Supp.2d 496 (2003) CASE BRIEF

GATTI V. COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF GREENE COUNTY, INC.

263 F.Supp.2d 496 (2003)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Gatti (P) prevailed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.S. 621 et seq., and New York statutory law, against Community (D), a former employer and an executive director. Post-trial motions included D's motion for a directed verdict, or new trial. P sought fees and interest.

FACTS: P was born on January 13, 1938, was first hired by D on September 18, 1978. From this date until her termination in July 1998, P held various positions. P's primary supervisor was Iva Woodford, who was the director of the Head Start Program a federally funded program that had to be conducted in accordance with federal guidelines. In 1996, D hired Edward Daly as Executive Director of Community Action and empowered him with the mandate to revamp the agency's infrastructure and bring the Head Start Program into compliance with the federal guidelines. Things became hostile There were work stoppages and charges of a 'lock out.' The funding for this Head Start Program was imperiled and ultimately, in 1998, federal funds were transferred from D to a Warren-Washington County Agency to oversee the operations of this program. All of the Head Start employees were terminated but eventually most, if not all, were re-hired in 1999, except P. P was offered a position within another D program but for a reduction in her salary. Her employment with D terminated in July 1998. Plaintiff sued for violation of ADEA and NYHRL. Dkt. No. 1. Gatti complained that once Daly became Executive Director in 1996 until she was terminated in 1998, he conducted a severe and pervasive discriminatory campaign against her by, inter alia: (1) decreasing her salary as Administrative Coordinator; (2) attempting, then eventually, eliminating her position due to her age; (3) creating a hostile working environment due to her age; (4) frequently demeaning her, at times in the presence of others, about her age; (5) continually withdrawing, compromising or minimizing her duties and responsibilities as Administrator Coordinator; and (6) reducing her salary when others' salaries were not similarly reduced. Her theories of liability were discrimination premised upon age, retaliation, and a hostile working environment. A Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was granted by the court. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded in accordance with its order. The Second Circuit found that P's Complaint was sufficient enough to overcome a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of P in the amount of $181,761.00. The jury awarded her back and front pay in the amounts of $57,453.00 and $44,308.00 respectively, and further awarded her for past emotional distress and mental anguish in the amount of $80,000.00. D motioned to set aside the verdict or for a new trail: 1) An improper age-based hostile work environment charge was given to the jury; 2) Plaintiff's expert was improperly allowed to testify about opinions not contained within the disclosed report; 3) Plaintiff's expert generated a second report that was not disclosed prior to trial thereby prejudicing Defendants; 4) Plaintiff's expert's initial report should have been excluded as it was unrealistic and ignored pertinent facts; 5) the jury's pain and suffering award was unreasonably high; and 6) there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner