Case Title: Schnabel v. Nordic Toyota, Inc.

Citation: 168 Vt. 354, 721 A.2d 114

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Schnabel v. Nordic Toyota, Inc.  (97-336); 168 Vt. 354; 721 A.2d 114

[Filed 2-Oct-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 97-336

Keith Schnabel                           Supreme Court

                                         On Appeal from
     v.                                  Chittenden Superior Court

Nordic Toyota, Inc. et al.               June Term, 1998

Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

       Christopher J. McVeigh of Paul, Frank & Collins, Burlington, for
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Robert A. Mello and John H. Klesch (On the Brief), South Burlington,
  for Defendants-Appellants.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Plaintiff-employee Keith Schnabel sustained a
  work-related injury, recovered, and then sought reinstatement to suitable
  employment under Vermont's Workers' Compensation statute.  When
  defendant-employer Nordic Toyota did not offer the first available suitable
  position, Schnabel sued for reinstatement under 21 V.S.A. § 643b, and
  alleged handicap discrimination in violation of 21 V.S.A. § 495(a).  After
  a bench trial, the superior court found liability under § 643b and awarded
  damages. Nordic Toyota appeals its liability and the award of damages based
  on Schnabel's alleged failure to mitigate. Schnabel cross-appeals the
  court's rulings on damages and its failure to issue findings and
  conclusions on the § 495(a) discrimination claim.  We affirm.

       The relevant facts are not in dispute.  The record reflects that
  Schnabel was injured in 1991 while working for Nordic Toyota as an
  automobile mechanic. The injury occurred when an alignment lift failed and
  caused a car to drop and hit his head.  After a brief absence, Schnabel
  returned to work, and eventually was promoted to shop foreperson with
  supervisory

 

  responsibility over two technician teams comprising seven technicians in
  all. In August of 1992, Schnabel left work because of increasing back pain
  resulting from the 1991 accident.  In the fall of 1993, after receiving
  medical treatment for his injury, Schnabel believed he was ready to return
  to work.  In November of that year, he was evaluated by a physician with
  the Spine Institute of New England in Williston and scheduled to enroll in
  a "work  hardening" program designed to help him manage the psychological
  and emotional  aspects of his pain and improve his strength and endurance
  for work.

       In December of 1993, Schnabel learned that the Nordic Toyota employee
  who had replaced him as shop foreperson intended to quit the position.  On
  December 17, 1993, Schnabel's attorney sent a letter to Nordic Toyota 
  expressing Schnabel's interest and preparedness to be reinstated to that 
  position, and asserting his rights to reinstatement pursuant to 21 V.S.A. §
  643b.

       On January 6, 1994, Nordic Toyota's director of human resources spoke 
  with Schnabel's attorney and indicated that there was no foreperson's job
  available at Nordic Toyota.  In a subsequent letter dated January 19, 1994,
  the director explained that the position had been eliminated in 1992 and
  replaced by the position of "Technician Group Leader" with a different pay
  structure.  The director also represented that the group leader position
  for which Schnabel applied had been filled prior to the January 6, 1994
  phone call.  The letter further stated: "As previously discussed, because
  of Mr.  Schnabel's own actions, and the hostile environment he has created
  in Nordic  Toyota, Inc., we can only offer him employment in one of our
  other facilities."  

       The January 19, 1994 letter to Schnabel from the human resources
  director also contained an invitation to interview for a position as a
  "Service Writer" at Nordic Ford, a division separate from Nordic Toyota,
  but within the same parent company.  Schnabel rejected the invitation.  In
  March of 1995, he was offered a position as service writer at Nordic
  Toyota, which he accepted.

       Schnabel sued Nordic Toyota for failure to reinstate him pursuant to 
  21 V.S.A. § 643b

  

  and for handicap discrimination under 21 V.S.A. § 495(a).  He sought
  damages for past and future lost wages, as well as emotional and punitive
  damages. The court granted judgment for Nordic Toyota on emotional and
  punitive damages after the close of Schnabel's evidence.  After trial, the
  court found Nordic  Toyota liable for violation of Schnabel's reinstatement
  rights under 21 V.S.A.  § 643b and awarded damages for past lost wages.  It
  found that Schnabel was capable of performing the essential functions of
  the group leader position when it became available in January of 1994, and
  every conceivable function within a few days after the position became
  available.  The court awarded damages for lost wages from 1994, 1995, and
  1996.  It found, however, that an award of future damages was not justified
  because Schnabel had returned to the same career track he would have been
  on had he been offered the group leader position in 1994, and evidence on
  the proper amount of future damages was speculative.  The court also stated
  that the evidence presented did not support punitive damages.  It did not
  issue findings and conclusions on the handicap discrimination claim under
  21 V.S.A. § 495(a).

       On appeal, Nordic Toyota claims the court erred in finding liability
  under 21 V.S.A. § 643b and claiming that the award of damages should have
  reflected Schnabel's capacity to  mitigate his damages by accepting the
  service writer position with Nordic Ford.  Schnabel cross-appeals and
  claims the court erred by failing to issue findings and conclusions on the
  handicap discrimination claim and failing to award future damages as well
  as emotional and punitive damages.

      I.  Liability for Failure to Reinstate Under 21 V.S.A. § 643b(b)

       Under Vermont's Workers' Compensation statute, an injured worker is
  entitled to reinstatement to his or her former position or a suitable
  alternative position upon recovery, provided the recovery occurs within two
  years of the onset of the disability.  See 21 V.S.A. § 643b(b).  The
  statute further provides that:

     [a] worker who recovers within two years of the onset of the 
     disability shall be reinstated in the first available position 
     suitable for the worker given the position the worker held at 
     the time of the

 

     injury.

  21 V.S.A. § 643b(b).  Under the statute, "`[r]ecovery' means that the
  worker can reasonably be expected to perform safely the duties of his or
  her prior position or an alternative suitable position."  Id. § 643b(a)(2). 
  Nordic Toyota's central claim on appeal is that the court erred in finding
  liability.

                           A.  Schnabel's Recovery

       Nordic Toyota claims the court erred in finding that Schnabel had
  recovered sufficiently to perform the duties required of the group leader
  position. The issue is whether Schnabel, in early 1994, could "reasonably
  be  expected to perform safely the duties" of the group leader position in 
  satisfaction of 21 V.S.A. § 643b(a)(2).

       "This Court will not set aside findings of fact unless, taking the 
  evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and excluding
  the effects of modifying evidence, they are clearly erroneous."  Jacobs v.
  Jacobs,  144 Vt. 124, 126,