Case Title: Egri v. U.S. Airways, Inc.

Citation: 174 Vt. 443, 804 A.2d 766

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Egri v. U.S. Airways, Inc. (2000-569); 174 Vt. 443; 804 A.2d 766

[Filed 22-May-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-569

                             JANUARY TERM, 2002


Janice Egri	                     }	      APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.	                             }	      Federal District Court 
                                     }
                                     }
U.S. Airways, Inc.	             }        DOCKET NO. 2:99-CV-195

                                              Trial Judge: Jerome J. Niedermeier

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       The United States District Court for the District of Vermont has
  certified to this Court the  following question: (FN1) Whether plaintiff
  Janice Egri's claim under the Vermont Fair  Employment Practices Act, 21
  V.S.A. §§ 495-496, is governed by the three-year statute of limitation  of
  12 V.S.A. § 512(4) or the six-year statute of limitation of 12 V.S.A. §
  511.  As explained more  fully below, we answer the question as follows:
  The three-year limitation statute governs plaintiff's  claim for emotional
  distress resulting from her loss of employment, while the six-year statute 
  governs her claim for economic loss of income and benefits.

       As set forth in plaintiff's complaint, the facts relevant to the
  question may be summarized as  follows: (FN2) Plaintiff began working for
  defendant U.S. Airways, then called Allegheny Airlines,  in 1972.  In 1983,
  she was transferred to the Burlington airport, where she worked as a
  customer  service agent.  In October 1993, plaintiff suffered a herniated
  lumbar disc while on the job and  ceased working.  Her doctor released her
  to return to work in March 1994, with restrictions due to  her back injury. 
  She sought to return, requesting reasonable accommodation, but was refused 
  because she was unable to perform every task that she had previously
  performed.

       On June 1, 1999, plaintiff filed suit against defendant in Chittenden
  Superior Court, alleging  that, by refusing to reasonably accommodate her
  disability, defendant had violated the provision of 

 

  the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) prohibiting discrimination
  against qualified  individuals with disabilities.  21 V.S.A. § 495(a)(1). 
  Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of defendant's  conduct, she had
  "suffered lost income and benefits," as well as "emotional distress
  resulting from  her loss of employment."

       Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the
  District of Vermont on  the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and moved to
  dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiff had failed to  bring her claim
  within the three-year statute of limitation governing suits for "[i]njuries
  to the  person."  12 V.S.A. § 512(4). (FN3)  Plaintiff acknowledged that
  the complaint was barred if  governed by § 512(4), but argued that it
  should be controlled instead by the general six-year  limitation period of
  12 V.S.A. § 511. (FN4)  Relying upon an earlier decision of the United
  States  District Court, Fellows v. Earth Constr., Inc.,