WILSON V. MONARCH PAPER CO. 939 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1991) CASE BRIEF

WILSON V. MONARCH PAPER CO.

939 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1991)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Monarch (D) appealed a decision, which denied their motions and awarded damages to Wilson (P) in P's action for age discrimination and retaliation brought under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.S. 621, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law.

FACTS: Wilson (P), at 48, was hired by D. P served as manager and a Corporate Director and routinely received merit raises and performance bonuses. In 1980, P received the additional title of 'Vice President.' In 1981, P was given the additional title of 'Assistant to John Blankenship,' D's President at the time. In 1981, P saw a portion of D's long-range plans that indicated that D was presently advancing younger persons in all levels of management. The preference for youth was verified by the Employee Relations Manager of D. In October 1981, D brought in a new, 42-year-old president from outside the company, Hamilton Bisbee. When Bisbee arrived at Monarch in November 1981, P was still deeply involved in the Dallas construction project. Bisbee, refused to speak to P or to 'interface' with him. Bisbee also made off hand comments that could only result in intimidating P to 'voluntarily quit.' Once the Dallas building project was completed, Bisbee intensified an effort designed to get rid of P. Bisbee was preparing a long-range plan for D, in which he made numerous references to age and expressed his desire to bring in 'new blood' and to develop a 'young team.' Bisbee then began dismantling P's job by removing his responsibilities and assigning them to other employees. In March 1982, P was hospitalized for orthopedic surgery. In June 1982, Bisbee gave P three options: (1) he could take a sales job in Corpus Christi at half his pay; (2) he could be terminated with three months' severance pay; or (3) he could accept a job as warehouse supervisor in the Houston warehouse at the same salary but with a reduction in benefits. The benefits included participation in the management bonus plan, and the loss of the use of a company car, a company club membership, and a company expense account. P accepted the warehouse position. P was actually placed instead in the position of an entry level supervisor, a position that required no more than one year's experience in the paper business. P, with his thirty years of experience in the paper business and a college degree, was vastly overqualified and overpaid for that position. P was subjected to harassment and verbal abuse by his supervisor who referred to P as an 'old man' and who admitted posting a sign in the warehouse that said 'Wilson is old.' P was placed under the supervision of a man in his twenties. P was also placed in charge of housekeeping but was not given any employees to assist him in the housekeeping duties. P, the former vice-president and assistant to the president, was thus reduced finally to sweeping the floors and cleaning up the employees' cafeteria, duties which occupied 75 percent of his working time. P was diagnosed as suffering from reactive depression, possibly suicidal, because of on-the-job stress. The psychiatrist also advised that P should stay away from work indefinitely. P filed an age discrimination charge with the EEOC in January 1983. P was involuntarily hospitalized with a psychotic manic episode. Prior to the difficulties with his employer, P had no history of emotional illness. P fell into a deep depression. P alleged age discrimination and various state law tort and contract claims. Ds filed a counterclaim, seeking damages in excess of $10,000 for libel and slander, but later dismissed it. The case was tried before a jury on claims that Ds (1) reassigned him because of his age; (2) intentionally inflicted emotional distress; and (3) terminated his long-term disability benefits in retaliation for filing charges of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The jury returned a special verdict awarding P $156,000 in damages, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages. The jury also found in favor of P on his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarding him past damages of $622,359.15, future damages of $225,000, and punitive damages of $2,250,000. The jury found in favor of the Ds on Ps retaliation claim. The district court entered judgment for $3,409,359.15 plus prejudgment interest. Ds appealed.

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