Case Title: Knapp v. State

Citation: 168 Vt. 590, 729 A.2d 719

Docket Number: 97-180

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Knapp v. State  (97-180); 168 Vt. 590; 729 A.2d 719

[Opinion Filed 28-Apr-1998]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 13-Jul-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-180

                              MARCH TERM, 1998

Angela Knapp                          }     APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
     v.                               }     Washington Superior Court
                                      }
State of Vermont, Don Mandelkorn,     }
Cindy Miller and SRS                  }     DOCKET NO. 269-5-95Wncv

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Angela Knapp appeals a jury verdict finding that her
  employer, the Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services
  (SRS), did not discriminate against her based on her hearing and
  communication impairment in violation of the Vermont Fair Employment
  Practices Act (VFEPA), 21 V.S.A. § 495 et seq.  On appeal, she argues that
  the judge's jury instructions were erroneous and therefore a new trial is
  required.  Because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury as to the
  shifting burdens of proof in this case, we reverse and remand for a new
  trial.

       Plaintiff's employment with SRS ran from November 1993 through April
  1994.  Plaintiff was employed as a clerk/receptionist, and her job
  description required her to have extensive contact with the general public
  both on the telephone and in person.  According to plaintiff, her
  disability affected her ability to perform her job tasks.  She requested
  telephone amplification and hearing aids to accommodate her hearing and
  communication problem.  Neither were provided prior to SRS terminating her
  employment.  At trial, plaintiff claimed that SRS was aware of her
  disability but failed to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of
  VFEPA. SRS claimed that plaintiff was fired because of poor work
  performance.  A jury verdict was returned in favor of SRS.  The jury found
  that plaintiff had a handicap, that the State was aware of the handicap,
  and that plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of her job
  with reasonable accommodation.  However, the jury found that the State did
  not terminate her employment in violation of VFEPA.  Judgment was entered
  accordingly on April 7, 1997.

       On appeal, plaintiff claims that the jury was improperly instructed on
  two elements: first, that the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury
  that plaintiff was required to establish that she was "intentionally"
  discriminated against; and second, that the judge did not properly instruct
  the jury concerning the shifting burdens of proof.  We find no error in the
  first instruction but do find error in the second.

       VFEPA prohibits discrimination in employment against a qualified
  handicapped individual.  To establish a claim under this statute, a
  plaintiff must show that she was a qualified handicapped individual and
  that she was excluded from her position because of her handicap. See State
  v. G.S. Blodgett Co., 163 Vt. 175, 180,