Jose A. Prado v. Federal Express Corporation
Published: Feb. 14, 2015 | Result Date: Oct. 3, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 5:12-cv-03945-PSG Verdict – Defense
Court
USDC Northern
Attorneys
Plaintiff
John R. Grele
(Law Office of John R. Grele)
Hector R. Martinez
(Mallison & Martinez )
Joseph D. Sutton
(Advocates for Worker Rights LLP)
Stanley S. Mallison
(Mallison & Martinez )
Marco A. Palau
(Advocates for Worker Rights LLP)
Defendant
Charles W. Matheis Jr.
(Federal Express Corp.)
Experts
Plaintiff
Phillip H. Allman III, Ph.D.
(technical)
Michael G. Adelberg
(medical)
Don Dinh Tran
(medical)
Defendant
Michael Goldfield
(medical)
Facts
Jose Prado sued Federal Express Corp., in connection with his employment with the company.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that he began working for defendant in 1997. In 2000, he injured his knee while on the job. Then, while he was out on medical leave, he suffered his first stroke and was in a coma for about one month. In November 2001, he returned to work. Plaintiff claimed that he had limited feeling on his left side, and would often sustain injuries. In 2009, he suffered his second stroke, allegedly due to being switched back and forth from light duty work to non-light duty work assignment. Plaintiff alleged that he was presented with a job offer with accommodation contract, which defendant quickly breached.
Plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, seeking a right to sue defendant. Plaintiff accused defendant of discriminating against him because of his national origin and disability. Plaintiff claimed defendant wrongfully terminated his employment, failed to promote him, and retaliated against him. Plaintiff alleged that he was also harassed. In addition, plaintiff claimed that defendant breached a contract, committed negligence, and failed to re-employ him after taking a leave of absence.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that plaintiff suffered his first stroke in January 2001 while on medical leave and returned to work in November without restrictions. Defendant claimed plaintiff performed all essential functions of his job until he was relieved of certain functions in March 2009, pursuant to a request for accommodation. In June, plaintiff suffered his second stroke. Defendant contended that when plaintiff attempted to return to work in October, based on limitation imposed by Prado's doctor, defendant determined Prado could not perform the essential functions of his job, even with reasonable accommodations. Prado was terminated in April 2010, after being unable to find a job he could perform.
Result
The jury rendered a defense verdict.
Deliberation
one day
Poll
9-0 (defense on all counts)
Length
nine days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390