THE INDIANA LAWYER
CHRISTMAS CASE
Type of Action:
Retaliation for worker's compensation
and for opposing sex discrimination.
Name of Case:
Carol F. Christmas v. Sommer Metalcraft
Corporation
Type of Injuries:
Compensatory damages of mental
anguish and emotional distress, lost wages and benefits, and attorney fees and costs.
Court/Case #:
U. S. District Court, Southern
District of Indiana, Case No. IP92-1224-C
Judge or Jury Trial:
Settlement.
Name of Judge:
Sarah Evans Barker, Chief Judge, V. Sue
Shields, Magistrate Judge.
Damages Awarded:
Settlement
Settlement Amount:
One hundred forty thousand dollars
($140,000.00) for compensatory damages and attorney fees and costs.
Date of Trial:
January 9, 1995 scheduled trial date.
Date of Settlement:
January 6, 1995.
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Richard L. Darst, Indianapolis.
Attorney for Defendant:
Available upon request.
Insurance Carrier, if any:
Available upon request.
Case Information:
Plaintiff testified in her
deposition that she told her supervisor several times that she had developed carpal tunnel
syndrome at work. She wore wrist supports to work. She asked her supervisor for
information about worker's compensation benefits. The supervisor asked plaintiff to
perform oral sex acts for him, and she refused. Plaintiff was terminated after 13 years of
employment with the company, her job was assigned to other employees, and she was not
offered any other position.
Other former employees testified to a pattern of
sexual harassment and retaliation against employees who had serious worker's compensation
claims. Another employee, who had carpal tunnel syndrome, who was laid off and who was
never recalled, testified that the personnel manager told her that she could not work with
carpal tunnel syndrome. Other employees testified to sexual statements and sexual
requests.
The defendant denied that plaintiff had requested
information about worker's compensation benefits and denied that the supervisor had
requested sex acts. The defendant denied any sex harassment and denied any retaliation.
Published Opinion:
In a published opinion under the
name of a related plaintiff, the district court held, contrary to language in previous
decisions, that retaliation for having a worker's compensation claim need not be the
"sole" reason for the termination if the other reasons are also unlawful. Watkins
v. Sommer Metalcraft Corp., 844 F.Supp. 1321 (S.D.Ind. 1994). The court held that in
order to establish a defense of other reasons for termination, the defendant must show
that the other reasons were independent lawful reasons, following federal discrimination
decisions.
Top
