This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Age Discrimination
Disparate Treatment

Stanley A. Jacobs v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1

Published: Jul. 13, 1996 | Result Date: May 19, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 942020500 –  $0

Judge

Richard J. Thorpe

Court

Snohomish Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Paul Wallstrom

Michael Scruggs


Defendant

John A. Follis


Experts

Plaintiff

Else Bolotin
(medical)

Facts

In June 1991, the plaintiff, a 56-year-old lineman, was hired to work at defendant Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) on a temporary basis as an electrical lineman. The plaintiff applied for a permanent position as an electrical lineman and was tested for the position in February 1992. The plaintiff's work had always been satisfactory. The plaintiff was not hired for a permanent position. The plaintiff claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant utility district based on an age discrimination theory of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $60,000. The defendant's settlement offer, if any, was not discolsed.

Specials in Evidence

none claimed $60,000

Damages

The plaintiff asked the jury for an award of $120,000. The defendant asked the jury for a defense verdict, or an award of $12,000 if it found in favor of the plaintiff.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed he suffered depression as a result of the defendant's conduct.

Other Information

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the disparate impact age discrimination claim and directed a defense verdict. The plaintiff's disparate treatment claim went to the jury.

Deliberation

not disclosed

Poll

10-2

Length

6 days


#92477

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390