Ray Carroll v. Wester Motors dba Wester Volkswagen dba Wester Dodge
Published: Sep. 3, 2005 | Result Date: May 13, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: M71417 Arbitration – $7,500
Judge
Court
Monterey Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Christopher E. Panetta
(Fenton & Keller APC)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Roger Shiffman
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Ray Carroll, a 56-year-old automotive mechanic, began working for defendant Wester Motors of
Monterey, as a transmission technician in 1990. By 2003, he was a level-four technician. He was the only
level-four technician at Wester Motors and the only one qualified to perform warranty work. After being
diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, he began an unpaid medical leave of absence in May 2003. He requested
a copy of the company's health plan, which he received nine months later. The plaintiff returned to work
without limitation in October 2003.
In early 2004, his condition got worse and he again took leave starting on Jan. 29. During both leave periods, the
defendant paid the entire amount of the plaintiff's health insurance, though not required to do so. In April, the
plaintiff's supervisor asked him to return to work, offering accommodation. Even with accommodation, the
plaintiff was not able to return to work. The plaintiff's oncologist said he might be able to return later. When
his supervisor asked the plaintiff when this might be, the plaintiff stated he was scheduled to take a CT scan in
July, at which time he would be better able to project a date. Unable to obtain a date of return, defendant
Wester terminated him on May 7.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a demand of $75,000; the defendant's offer was $50,000.
Damages
The plaintiff sought damages for wage loss, loss of insurance benefits, and emotional distress. He also sought punitive damages and attorneyÆs fees. His counsel argued that the defendant would not have suffered financial harm (other than about $1,000 in insurance payments), by keeping his position open until July 2004. The plaintiff noted that the defendant did not fill the position until January 2005.
Result
The arbitrator found in favor of the defendant on the wrongful termination, disability discrimination, and violation of FEHA causes of action. Although he found that the defendant did not prove that maintaining the plaintiff on leave was causing it financial hardship, he determined that it had engaged in the requisite interactive process, while plaintiff did not. The arbitrator noted that the plaintiff did not notify the defendant that his lung cancer was terminal and that, when asked when he might return, the plaintiff did not give his employer even a ballpark answer. The arbitrator found in favor of the plaintiff on his ERISA claim, for the defendantÆs failure to timely provide a copy of the summary plan, awarding him $7,500 in statutory damages. The arbitrator urged the parties to reach a settlement in order to avoid either side being ordered to pay the other's costs. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to settle the case for a total of $10,000, with each side to bear its own costs and attorneyÆs fees.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390