Title: Carpenter v. Central VT Medical Center

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Carpenter v. Central VT Medical Center (98-387); 170 Vt. 565; 743 A.2d 592

[Filed 09-Nov-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-387

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999

Bernard Carpenter	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Washington Superior Court
	                               }	
Central Vermont Medical Center	       }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 654-12-96 Wncv

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

       Plaintiff appeals from a decision granting judgment for defendant on
  claims of age  discrimination and retaliation.  At a bench trial, the trial
  court held plaintiff to a higher standard  of proof than is required for
  the prima facie case and therefore erred in applying the burden- shifting
  framework for employment discrimination claims. We reverse for this reason,
  but affirm  the other challenged rulings by the trial court.

       Plaintiff was hired by Central Vermont Hospital in 1984.  He worked as
  a custodian for  ten years, eventually moving to the Woodridge Nursing
  Home, operated by defendant Central  Vermont Medical Center (CVMC). 
  Plaintiff received favorable performance evaluations for the  majority of
  his time with CVMC.  In 1994, he was fifty-eight years old. In February
  1994, the  nursing home created a new position for a lead housekeeper,
  involving many of plaintiff's duties,  as well as some new
  responsibilities.  Two individuals applied for the position, plaintiff and 
  Mike Tanner, a twenty-three-year-old employee who had been a housekeeper
  for three months.   Plaintiff and Tanner were both interviewed, and Tanner
  was selected for the job.

       In spring 1995, the nursing home decided to restructure the duties of
  some of its staff,  including plaintiff.  Carpenter was asked to add to his
  duties of dust mopping, vacuuming,  stripping, and waxing floors, the tasks
  of wet mopping, dusting lights and furniture, cleaning  patient rooms, and
  changing dirty linens.  As a result of throat cancer and radiation
  treatments  for it, plaintiff experienced heightened sensitivity to some
  cleaning products and to human waste.  Upon being told of the
  reorganization plan, plaintiff refused to do the new duties.  He took a 
  month's vacation and returned, but was still unwilling to perform tasks
  such as cleaning patient  rooms.  His job was terminated by CVMC at that
  time.  	

       Plaintiff filed suit for age discrimination and retaliation under
  Vermont's Fair Employment  Practices Act (FEPA).  The complaint did not
  contain a demand for a jury trial, nor was one  filed within the time
  limits of V.R.C.P. 38.  Plaintiff tried repeatedly to undo this mistake by 
  adding new legal theories to his case. On February 27, 1997, plaintiff
  filed a motion to amend  his complaint to add a federal age discrimination
  claim and obtain a jury trial.  The trial court 

 

  denied these motions. Plaintiff next moved to amend his complaint to add a
  claim of disability  discrimination under FEPA and to demand a jury trial. 
  The court denied both motions. Plaintiff  moved for the third time for a
  jury trial on March 8, 1998, and this motion, too, was denied.   The
  dispute proceeded to a bench trial and the court rendered judgment for
  defendant CVMC.  

       Plaintiff appeals five issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in
  analyzing plaintiff's  evidence as required by Ross v. Times-Mirror, Inc.,
  164 Vt. 13,