Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

Baltimore District Office

)

10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor)

Baltimore, Maryland 21201 )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION )

d/b/a FEDEX EXPRESS

)

3660 Hacks Cross Road

)

Building A

)

Memphis, Tennessee 38132

)

)

and

)

)

Baltimore-Washington

)

International Airport

)

Cargo Building E

)

Baltimore, Maryland 21240

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

)

Civil Action No. C O M P L A I N T JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I and Title V of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (“The ADA”) of 1990 and Title I of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices

and to provide appropriate relief to Ronald Lockhart, who was

adversely affected by such practices. The United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC” or the

“Commission”) alleges that Mr. Lockhart was unlawfully terminated

because he opposed acts made unlawful by the ADA, and because he

Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 2 of 8
filed a charge with the EEOC and participated in EEOC proceedings related to his charge. The Commission further alleges that Defendant also discriminated against Mr. Lockhart by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability, profound deafness. As a result of Defendant’s failure to reasonably accommodate Mr. Lockhart’s disability, Mr. Lockhart was denied equal benefits and privileges of employment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1),(3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title I and Title V of the ADA and is expressly
2

Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 3 of 8
authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Federal Express Corporation, has continuously been a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(g),(h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity within the meaning of Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1211(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ronald Lockhart filed two charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title I and Title V of the ADA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Beginning on approximately March 14, 2000, and continuing until Mr. Lockhart’s termination on January 17, 2003, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its
3

Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 4 of 8
facility at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, in violation of Sections 102(a) and 102(b)(5)(A) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(A), and in violation of Title V of the ADA, Section 503(a), 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). The practices include the following:
a. repeatedly refusing to provide reasonable accommodations necessary for Mr. Lockhart, who is profoundly deaf, to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment, such as inclusion in shift meetings and other meetings and training events, and receipt from management of information it disseminated at these meetings and training events; and
b. terminating Mr. Lockhart’s employment because he opposed acts and practices made unlawful by the ADA and because he filed a charge with the EEOC and participated in proceedings related to his charge.
9. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Ronald Lockhart, a qualified individual with a disability, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of his disability and because of his participation in statutorily protected activities.
10. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of his rights under the ADA, Ronald Lockhart has suffered damages in the form of past pecuniary losses. In addition he has suffered
4

Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 5 of 8
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, embarrassment, frustration, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ronald Lockhart.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of a disability, and from engaging in retaliation against persons who oppose practices made unlawful by the ADA, or who have filed charges with the EEOC or participated in EEOC investigations or other proceedings;
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, prevent retaliation against persons who have participated in
5

Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 6 of 8
statutorily protected activities, and eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant to make whole Ronald Lockhart by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
D. Order Defendant to implement non-discriminatory, objective, written policies and practices regarding the terms and conditions of employment and sign and conspicuously post, for a designated period of time, a notice to all employees that sets forth the remedial action required by the Court and inform all employees that it will not discriminate against any employee because of a disability, including that it will comply with all aspects of the ADA, and that it will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under that statute;
E. Order Defendant to make whole Ronald Lockhart by providing compensation for past pecuniary losses, in amounts to be proven at trial;
F. Order Defendant to make whole Ronald Lockhart by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of
6

Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 7 of 8
enjoyment of life, embarrassment, frustration, and humiliation, in an amount to be proven at trial;
G. Order Defendant to pay to Ronald Lockhart punitive damages for its callous indifference to his federally protected right to be free from discrimination based on disability in the workplace;
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper; and
I. Award the Commission its costs in this action. The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney
DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney
7

Case 1:04-cv-03129-WDQ Document 1-3 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 8 of 8
____________________________ MARIA LUISA MOROCCO Trial Attorney Federal Bar No. 24357 _____________________________ MARIA SALACUSE Trial Attorney Federal Bar. No. 15562 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 10 S. Howard Street 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Phone: (410) 962-4260 Fax: (410) 962-4270
8

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION

*

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

*

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

*

*

Plaintiff

*

*

v.

*

*

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION *

*

Defendant.

*

CIVIL NO.: WDQ-04-3129

*************

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

“EEOC”) sued Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”)for failure to

accommodate a former FedEx employee’s disability and retaliatory

discharge in violation of the American With Disabilities Act

(“ADA”)1. Pending is FedEx’s motion for summary judgment. For the

following reasons, FedEx’s motion for summary judgment will be

denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In March 2000, Ronald Lockhart, a deaf individual, began

working as a handler for FedEx. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶1,Ex. 4

at 50. As a handler at FedEx’s Baltimore-Washington International

Airport facility (“BWI facility”), Lockhart sorted, stacked and

scanned packages. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 5 at 79, 83, 91. Lockhart’s

1 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2005). 1

primary language is American Sign Language (“ASL”). See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶2. Despite his poor English fluency and inability to hear sound and read lips, Lockhart was able to effectively perform his job. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶1; Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A. at 183-184.
Although he could perform the essential functions of his job, without an interpreter, Lockhart was unable to obtain information disseminated in training sessions and daily, monthly and quarterly staff meetings. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 44-45, 54, 132-133, 143-144. Lockhart also found certain aspects of FedEx’s benefits and attendance policies ambiguous without the aid of an interpreter. See id. at 92-93, 110-112; Ex. 9 at 245-246, 324-325. Due to his inability to obtain information provided to other FedEx employees, Lockhart repeatedly requested an interpreter for training sessions and meetings. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 44-45, 54, 132-133. Despite his preference for an interpreter, he also requested that his managers provide him with notes of all meetings. See id. at 143-144. Lockhart knew that an interpreter and/or notes would adequately accommodate him because he was able to attend college with the aid of an interpreter and note taker. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶6. With the exception of a few inadequate attempts to accommodate Lockhart--recruiting an untrained employee to sign for Lockhart on two occasions--for two years, FedEx virtually
2

ignored these requests. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 8 at 43-44, 51; Ex. 16 at 28-19, 32, 35.
On October 17, 2001, Lockhart filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that FedEx violated the ADA by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 17. In January 2002, FedEx retained a professional interpreter, Derwood O’Quinn, for the monthly staff meetings as well as a training session, performance evaluation and disciplinary proceeding. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 18 at 7; Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. L at 124, 126, 128133, 136-140. Lockhart, however, attended several monthly meetings that were not interpreted, none of the quarterly meetings were interpreted and prior to August 2002, the monthly video training tapes were neither interpreted nor closed-captioned. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 149,169; Ex. 9 at 211. Moreover, Lockhart did not receive notes for all daily meetings and when received, the notes were not comprehensive. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 224-227.
Days after Victor Cofield, Lockhart’s supervisor, became aware of his 2001 charge, Lockhart received a performance reminde2r for his absence due to an ice storm. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 275277; Def. Mot. Summ. J. Exh. Q. FedEx requires its employees to
2A performance reminder is a written deficiency notification. See Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. E at 197. If an employee receives three performance reminders within twelve months, termination of employment is warranted under FedEx policy. See id. at 211.
3

maintain a 96.9% attendance rate. See Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. H. As this was his second performance reminder and his attendance rate was below satisfactory, Lockhart was called into an emergency meeting and was given a sample Performance Agreement. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 109. A Performance Agreement outlines the steps an employee agrees upon to improve his performance. See Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. G at 71. If the employee fails to adhere to the terms of the Performance Agreement, termination may result. See Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. R.
Lockhart alleges that he did not fully understand the Performance Agreement, which is evidenced by his agreement to improve his performance “through training and remedial work”. See Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. R.; Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 104-105, 110. Although he accepted the Performance Agreement, Cofield acknowledged that it was unclear. See Plain. Opp. at 324-325. While O’Quinn was present during the emergency meeting, he did not assist Lockhart in executing the Performance Agreement. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 112. No interpreter was p rovided for Lockhart’s initial performance reminder. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 289.
In January 2003, Lockhart experienced food poisoning and sought medical attention. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶18. Due to the severity of his illness, he was absent from work. Despite his medical documentation, Cofield issued Lockhart his third
4

performance reminder, thereby terminating him. See id. at ¶ 23. On September 30, 2004, the EEOC initiated this suit on
Lockhart’s behalf alleging failure to accommodate and retaliatory discharge.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION A. Motion for Summary Judgment
1. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that, in considering a motion for summary judgment, "the judge's function is not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. Thus, "the judge must ask ... whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the evidence presented." Id. at 252. The court must view the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion," Matsushita Electric Industrial Company v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), but the opponent
5

must produce evidence upon which a reasonable fact finder could rely. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). A “scintilla” of evidence is not sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
2. Failure to Accommodate under the ADA The ADA prohibits discrimination “against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to..... terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The term “discriminate” includes...not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability...,unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the employer. 42 U.S.C. § 1 2112(b)(5)(4). An employer is not relieved of its duty to accommodate when an employee is able to perform the essential functions of the job. See Buckingham v. USPS , 998 F.2d 735, 740 (9 th Cir. 1993). Reasonable accommodation, therefore, includes measures necessary for an employee to “enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by...other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) (2005). Absent direct evidence, an inference of discrimination may arise by proof of a prima facie case of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). To establish
6

a prima facie case of failure to accommodate, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) he has a disability within the meaning of the statute; (2) the employer had notice of his disability, (3) with reasonable accommodation he could enjoy the privileges and benefits of employment as are enjoyed by other similarly situated employees without disabilities; and (4) the employer has refused to make a reasonable accommodation. Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373, 387 (4 th Cir. 2001); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii).
FedEx contends that the EEOC’s claim must fail because it cannot meet the fourth element. Specifically, FedEx argues that Lockhart only requested daily access to an interpreter which was too costly and therefore an unreasonable accommodation. FedEx, therefore, maintains that denying this request does not violate the ADA. Even assuming that Lockhart only requested daily interpretative services, summary judgment is still inappropriate.
An employer who has received notice that a reasonable accommodation is requested “cannot escape its duty to engage in the interactive process simply because the employee did not come forward with a reasonable accommodation that would prevail in litigation.” Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America , Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 953 (8 th Cir. 1999). Once a disabled employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The appropriate accommodation is best determined
7

through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the disabled employee. See id. Accordingly, even if Lockhart only requested daily interpretative services, FedEx was obligated to research alternative accommodations. Summary Judgment is inappropriate when there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer acted in good faith in seeking a reasonable accommodation. See Haneke v. Mid-Atlantic Capital Mgt. , No. 04-2146, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8186 , slip op. at *4,(4th Cir. May 10, 2005) (implicit in the fourth element of the prima facie case is whether the employer and employee engaged in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation)).
An employee, however, must demonstrate not only the employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process, but that such failure resulted in a failure to identify an appropriate accommodation. See Walter v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 99-2622, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26875, slip op. at *14, (t4h Cir. Oct. 25,2000) (citing Rehling v. City of Chicago , 207 F.3d 1009, 1016 (7 th Cir. 2000)). Based upon the record, a reasonable jury could find that FedEx’s failure to adequately engage in the interactive process led to its failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
It is undisputed that Lockhart placed FedEx on notice of his limited ability to communicate by retaining an interpreter for both his initial interview and training. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶¶7, 11; Ex. 10a at 14. However, for the first two years of
8

Lockhart’s employment, the record is replete of any meaningful effort FedEx made to ascertain the most appropriate manner to communicate with Lockhart. Although Lockhart was the first deaf employee at the BWI facility, his supervisors made no effort to familiarize themselves with the company’s policy on disabled workers or the ADA. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 5 at 56-57, Ex. 7 at 24, Ex. 9 at 71-72, 255-256, 261. They also failed to contact two vital company resources for guidance, the Human Resources department and the Human Capital Management Program3. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 7 at 23, Ex. 9 at 111-112, Ex. 13 at 27, 42-43.
When Lockhart informed Cofield that the Ohio facility had an on-site interpreter for its deaf employees, Cofield made no attempt to contact the facility. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 259-260. Moreover, Patrick Hanratty, Senior Operations Manager, knew that the FedEx facility at Dulles International Airport employed deaf employees, however, he made no effort to ascertain how those managers effectively communicated with them. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 5 at 57-59. They failed to follow-up on these sources even though it was clear that Lockhart wasnot obtaining vital information. See id. at 73-74.
Throughout 2001, Lockhart viewed several mandatory training videos which were neitherinterpreted nor closed-captioned. See Plain. Opp. Ex.9 at 122-123; 127-128. FedEx did not provide
3The Human Capital Management program coordinates requests for reasonable accommodation. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 13 at 27.
9

interpreters for these training sessions because Cofield did not know that interpreters were covered under the ADA. See id. at 122123. Instead of providing Lockhart with a “qualified” interpreter for his training exams, FedEx provided him with a colleague who basically provided him with the exam answers. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶12.
Despite Lockhart’s repeated requests, from March 20002001, FedEx did not provide Lockhart with notes for the daily prework meetings. See id. at ¶10, Ex. 4 at 141-142, 153, 170. As a result, Lockhart was not provided with the same information given to his hearing colleagues such as safety topics, changes in corporate policies and scheduling of monthly meetings. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 184. In the monthly meetings, Lockhart would receive a one-page outline, given to all employees, which did not include the question and answer portion of the meeting. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 157. Lockhart, therefore, wouldnot receive vital information relating to topics such as pay raises. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 5 at 27-28. Moreover, FedEx did not provide Lockhart with a reasonable accommodation form until January 2003. See id. at 159. Lockhart, however, indicated that he needed an interpreter to help him fill out the form, but his request was denied. See Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. L.
FedEx contends that although it was initially slow in responding to Lockhart’s needs, its subsequent attempts to accommodate him satisfy its obligation underthe ADA. Specifically,
10

FedEx states that it in 2002, it provided Lockhart with notes for the pre-work daily meetings and a professional interpreter for monthly meetings and disciplinary proceedings. Although FedEx had the ultimate discretion to choosebetween effective accommodations-daily interpretative services or combination of monthly interpretative services and daily note taking--the accommodation given still must be reasonable. See Walter, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26875, at *14(“The interactive process does not require the employer to provide the specific accommodation requested by the disabled employee, or even to provide the best accommodation, so long as the accommodation provided to the disabled employee is reasonable”).
Despite O’Quinn’s hiring, there were several monthly meetings that were not interpreted and none of the quarterly meetings were interpreted. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 4 at 149; Ex. 9 at 437-438. Furthermore, the daily meeting notes were inadequate because they did not include all ofthe information discussed at the meetings and were not con sistently provided. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 224-227, 237, 240. As a reasonable jury could find that Lockhart was not provided with a reasonable accommodation, summary judgment is inappropriate. See Pantazes v. Jackson, 366 F.Supp. 2d 57, 69 (D.D.C. 2005) (summary judgment precluded where dispute existed regarding whether employer implemented an accommodation sufficient under ADA); Merry v. Sullka & Co., 953 F.Supp. 922, 92728 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (summary judgment precluded where various accommodations delayed, or only provided sporadically, for years).
11

3. Retaliation The elements of a retaliation claim are: (1) engagement in a protected activity; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the asserted adverse action. Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d 858, 863 (4th Cir. 2001). Once this is shown, the burden is on the employer to rebut the presumption of retaliation by articulating a legitimate nonretaliatory reason for its actions. See Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 460 (4th Cir. 1994). The plaintiff must then demonstrate that the employer's reason was mere pretext for retaliation by proving " both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason for the challenged conduct."
Jiminez v. Mary Washington College, 57 F.3d 369, 377-78 (4th Cir.) (quoting St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407, 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 944, 133 L. Ed. 2d 304, 116 S. Ct. 380 (1995)).
FedEx argues that the EEOC has failed to establish a prima facie case because it has not met the third element.
Here, Lockhart was disciplined shortly after Cofield discovered that he had filed an EEOC charge. See Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. Q. Additionally, he was terminated shortly after informing Cofield that the daily pre-work meeting notes were inadequate and insisting that he have more access to an interpreter. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 1 at ¶22. The EEOC, therefore, has established a prima
12

facie case. See Lamb v. Qualex, Inc., No. 99-1188, 2002 U.S. App.

LEXIS 5982, slip op. at *32-33, (4

th Cir. Apr. 3, 2002)(“A

sufficient casual connection is established by proving a close

temporal connection between the protected activity and the adverse

action”)).

FedEx contends that Lockhart was terminated, not in

retaliation for asserting his rights under the ADA, but for his poor

attendance. In viewing the facts most favorable to the EEOC, a

reasonable jury could find this reason as pretextual.

In November 2002, although Lockhart’s absences warranted

a performance reminder, Cofield used his discretion in not

disciplining Lockhart. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 303. Despite his

prior leniency, shortly after discovering that Lockhart filed an

EEOC charge, Cofield disciplined Lockhart for his absence related to

inclement weather. As this was his second performance reminder

within 12 months, this led to his January 2003 termination.

Although FedEx has a strict attendance policy, managers are

encouraged to use discretion when appropriate such as absences due

to inclement weather. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 25.

Additionally, when exigent circumstances have contributed

to an employee’s absence or p unctuality, managers have exercised

their discretion not to terminate that employee. See Plain. Opp.

Ex. 9 at 413 (deciding not to terminate employee when absence

related to grandfather’s funeral); see id. at 415 (deciding not to

13

terminate employee when late because of car accident); See Plain. Opp. Ex. 27 at 114-3 (deciding not to terminate employee who was late after being detained by the police). Here, Lockhart provided medical documentation for a severe illness and was nevertheless terminated. In further support of the EEOC’s retaliation claim, Cofield admits that at the time of Lockhart’s termination, they had a very strained relationship because of the ADA issues. See Plain. Opp. Ex. 9 at 348. This admission, combined with FedEx’s efforts in accommodating Lockhart, may lead a reasonable jury to find that Lockhart experienced retaliation. Accordingly, summary judgment is inappropriate.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, FedEx’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.

September 13, 2005 Date

/s/ William D. Quarles, Jr. United States District Judge

14

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
v.

CIVIL NO.: WDQ-04-3129

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION doing business as Fedex Express

JUDGMENT

The above entitled case having come on for trial by Jury before the undersigned
r and the issues having been duly tried and submi~ted the jury, and the jury having rendered

its verdict on a special verdict form, it is, this 34ay of March 2006, ORDERED and

ADJUDGED:

1. That judgment BE, and it hereby IS, entered in favor of plaiI~tiff, against the

defendant in the sum of $8,000.00 compensatory damages and in the sum of

$100,000.00 punitive damages, with costs.

2. That any and all prior rulings made by the Court disposing of any claims against any parties are incorporated by reference therein, and this order shall be deemed to be a final Judgment within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

~L-~.:;t
LWu}-:
-.-f c.:: LL
"-'--0 I... L~~

"(!!' m D. Quarles, Jr.
U.S. District Judge

 
 U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Federal Exp. Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 1134208 United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION Defendant.
No. WDQ–04–3129. | April 25, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Gerald S. Kiel, Debra Michele Lawrence, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Maria Luisa Morocco, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Baltimore, MD, Maria Salacuse, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Boston, MA, Stephanie Marino, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
John W. Campbell, Edward John Efkeman, Federal Express Corporation, Memphis, TN, Amy S. Owen, Cochran and Owen LLC, Vienna, VA, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
QUARLES, J.
*1 The U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), on behalf of Ronald Lockhart, sued Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act1 (the “ADA”). The case was tried in March 2006. The jury found that FedEx had engaged in intentional discrimination by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for Lockhart. The jury also determined that FedEx higher management officials had acted with malice or reckless indifference to Lockhart’s federally protected rights. The jury awarded Lockhart $8,000 in compensatory damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages. By awarding punitive damages, the jury rejected FedEx’s good faith efforts defense.
Pending are FedEx’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JNOV”) on punitive damages or, alternatively, for remittitur, and the EEOC’s motion for equitable relief. For the reasons discussed below, FedEx’s motion for JNOV on punitive damages or for remittitur will be denied, and the EEOC’s motion for equitable relief will be granted in part and denied in part.
A. Motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, for Remittitur The Court may grant a motion for JNOV under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) only if there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party. See Cline v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir.1998). The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Pathways Psychosoical v. Town of Leonardtown, 223 F.Supp.2d 699, 706 (D.Md.2002). If reasonable minds could differ, the Court must deny the motion. Id.
Punitive damages are appropriate if a managerial employee, acting within the scope of his employment, violates the ADA “with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of a disabled individual.” See Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 206 F.3d 431, 443 (4th Cir.2000); 42 U.S.C.1981a(b)(1). Despite its employee’s conduct, an employer may avoid punitive damages, if it engaged in good faith efforts to comply with the ADA. See Kolstad v. American Dental Assoc., 527 U.S. 526, 535, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999).
FedEx has moved for JNOV on punitive damages arguing that the evidence does not support that 1) FedEx managerial employees acted with malice or reckless indifference to Lockhart’s entitlement to a reasonable accommodation, and 2) FedEx
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Federal Exp. Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
did not engage in good faith efforts to comply with the ADA.
FedEx contends that its managers—Cofield and Hanratty—provided Lockhart with reasonable accommodations such as notes, meeting handouts, and closed-captioned videotapes. FedEx, therefore, argues that there was no basis for the jury to find that they acted in disregard of Lockhart’s needs. Even assuming that Cofield and Hanratty recklessly disregarded Lockhart’s disability, FedEx argues that the company made good faith efforts to comply with the ADA. Specifically, FedEx contends that it implemented a company wide anti-discrimination policy regarding disabled employees. The EEOC, however, produced sufficient evidence—accepted by the jury—contradicting FedEx’s contentions. FedEx, therefore, has failed to prove that there was insufficient evidence for the verdict. The Court will decline FedEx’s invitation to weigh the evidence and draw all inferences in its favor. See Imgarten v. Bellboy Corp., 383 F.Supp.2d 825, 844 (D.Md.2005).
*2 Alternatively, FedEx argues that remittitur is appropriate because the jury’s punitive damages award was excessive.
Under principles of remittitur, a trial judge may reduce the amount of damages awarded by a jury where the damages are grossly excessive and cannot be justified by the record. Holman v. Mark Industries, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 1195, 1204–05 (D.Md.1985), aff’d, 796 F.2d 473 (4th Cir.1986). Upon properly finding that FedEx acted with malice or reckless indifference to Lockhart’s federally protected rights, the jury awarded $100,000 in punitive damages. The statutory cap for an employer of FedEx’s size is $300,000. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). As the award in this case falls within the range that Congress has determined to be reasonable, remittitur is inappropriate. See EEOC v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1249 (10th Cir.1999) (rejecting argument that one-fourth of statutory maximum was excessive).
Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion for JNOV on punitive damages or for remittitur will be denied.
B. Motion for Equitable Relief The EEOC requests an order enjoining FedEx from further denying reasonable accommodations to its disabled employees, requiring an ADA manager training program and posting of a notice to employees informing them of their ADA rights.
The Court has the authority to order injunctive and equitable relief if it finds that the defendant has intentionally engaged ... in an unlawful employment practice ...” 42 U.S.C.2000e–5(g)(1).2
Although the Court will grant some equitable relief, it is inappropriate to enjoin FedEx to obey the law. The ADA remains in effect, and an injunction to obey that law would “add nothing”. E.E.O.C. v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., No.99–CV–106–DRH, 2000 WL 1162029, at *4 (S.D.Ill. Jun.29, 2000) (denying EEOC’s request for permanent injunction against retaliatory discharge of employees).
The Court will require mandatory ADA training for FedEx managers. FedEx contends that court-ordered ADA training would be unnecessarily duplicative of its previous training efforts. The evidence at trial established that FedEx managers at BWI were unaware of the company’s policy on disabled employees. Additionally, the Court will order FedEx to post a notice at its Baltimore Ramp reminding its employees of FedEx’s ADA Policies.
Accordingly, the EEOC’s motion for equitable relief will be granted in part and denied in part.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, FedEx’s motion for JNOV on punitive damages or for remittitur will be denied, and the EEOC’s motion for equitable relief will be granted in part and denied in part.
Parallel Citations
32 NDLR P 157
Footnotes 2

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Federal Exp. Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

1

42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2006).

2

This section is incorporated into Section 107(a) of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).

3

 
 U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04−cv−03129−WDQ

CLOSED

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Express Corporation Assigned to: Judge William D Quarles, Jr Case in other court: 4CCA,
06−01724 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/30/2004 Date Terminated: 03/03/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 Email: gerald.kiel@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Debra Michele Lawrence U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092734 Fax: 14109624270 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109622817

Maria Luisa Morocco US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092730 Fax: 14109624270 Email: maria.morocco@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria Salacuse U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092733

Fax: 14109624341 Email: maria.salacuse@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Marino US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 S Fifth St Ste 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 12154402841 Fax: 12154402848 Email: stephanie.marino@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Federal Express Corporation doing business as Fedex Express

represented by John W Campbell Federal Express Corporation 3620 Hacks Cross Rd Bldg B Third Fl Memphis, TN 38125 19014348403 Fax: 19014349271 Email: jwcampbell@fedex.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy S Owen Cochran and Owen LLC 8000 Towers Crescent Dr Ste 160 Vienna, VA 22182 17038474480 Fax: 17038474499 Email: aowen@cochranowen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward John Efkeman Federal Express Corporation Legal Dept 3620 Hacks Cross Rd Bldg B 3rd Floor Memphis, TN 38125 19014348555 Fax: 19014349271 Email: eefkeman@fedex.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2004
09/30/2004 10/01/2004
11/01/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Federal Express Corporation , filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # Civil Cover Sheet)(nrm, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 11/10/2004 (cag, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 10/01/2004)
JURY TRIAL DEMAND by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (nrm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
2 Summons Issued (20 days) as to Federal Express Corporation. (nrm, Deputy Clerk) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/4/2004 (nrm, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 11/10/2004 (cag, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 10/01/2004)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Federal Express Corporation served on 10/17/2004, answer due 11/8/2004. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

11/08/2004 11/10/2004 11/16/2004 11/22/2004 01/03/2005
01/03/2005
02/17/2005 02/18/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005
03/11/2005 03/25/2005 03/25/2005 03/30/2005 03/31/2005 04/13/2005
05/27/2005

4 ANSWER to Complaint by Federal Express Corporation.(Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
5 SCHEDULING ORDER:. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 11/10/04. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Amy S. Owen on behalf of Federal Express Corporation (Owen, Amy) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
7 STATUS REPORT (Initial) by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
8 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (to Modify Scheduling Order to GIve the Parties Additional Time within the Discovery Period to Make Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures Regarding Expert Witnesses) by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 1/20/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 01/03/2005)
9 Paperless ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's expert disclosures are due 1/25/05. Defendant's expert disclosures are due 2/23/05. Plaintiff's rebuttal expert disclosures are due 3/9/05. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 1/3/2005. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 01/03/2005)
10 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/6/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
11 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 2/18/05. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
12 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Morocco, Maria) Modified on 3/11/2005 (eg, Deputy Clerk). (c/s Chambers &Clerk's Office) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
13 Joint MOTION to Seal Exhibits Subject to the Stipulated Protective Order by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/28/2005 (Morocco, Maria) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2005 (eg, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 03/10/2005)
14 MARGINAL ORDER granting 13 Joint Motion to Seal Exhibits. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/11/05. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
15 STATUS REPORT by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
16 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 4/11/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
17 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to file dispositive motions by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 4/18/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
18 ORDER granting 17 Joint Motion for modification of the scheduling order. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/31/05. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
19 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 16 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Discovery Period by One Month for the Limited Purpose of enabling Plaintiff to depose Ronald Thomson by telephone. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on April 13, 2005. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 04/13/2005)
20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Federal Express Corporation. Responses due by 6/13/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M# 15 Exhibit N# 16 Exhibit O# 17 Exhibit P# 18 Exhibit Q# 19 Exhibit R# 20 Exhibit S# 21 Exhibit T# 22 Errata U)(Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 05/27/2005)

06/09/2005
06/09/2005 06/17/2005
06/28/2005 07/07/2005
07/13/2005 07/18/2005 07/19/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 09/14/2005 09/14/2005 01/27/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006 02/07/2006 02/14/2006 02/16/2006

21 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time of one week for plaintiff to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/27/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
22 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 21 Consent Motion for Extension of Time until June 17, 2005 to file response. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on June 9, 2005. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
23 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 7/1/2005. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 # 19 # 20 # 21)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
24 REPLY to Response to Motion re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Federal Express Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex V# 2 Exhibit Ex W# 3 Exhibit Ex X)(Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
25 PAPERLESS ORDER. Counsel for Federal Express have e−filed document number 24 which, with attached exhibits, exceeds 15 pages in length. Counsel have not submitted a paper copy of that document as required by the Court's CM/ECF instructions. Counsel are directed to do so immediately by mailing or hand−delivering to chambers a paper copy of the document, together with a notice that the document has been e−filed. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on July 7, 2005. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
26 Proposed Pretrial Order submitted by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
27 MOTION in Limine Regarding Events at Locations Other than BWI by Federal Express Corporation. Responses due by 8/4/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
28 RESPONSE in Opposition re 27 MOTION in Limine Regarding Events at Locations Other than BWI filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 8/2/2005. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
29 ORDER CONFIRMING the date set for Trial. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 7/20/05. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
Pretrial Conference held on 7/20/2005 before Judge William D Quarles Jr.. (Entered: 08/02/2005)
30 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 9/13/05. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
31 ORDER denying 20 Motion of Defendant for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 9/13/05. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
32 Supplemental to 26 Proposed Pretrial Order filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff's Supplemental Deposition Designations. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
33 Proposed Jury Instructions by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
34 (FILED IN ERROR) MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) Modified on 2/6/2006 (egs, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/03/2006)
35 REQUEST FOR ENTRY of Appearance by Stephanie Marino on behalf of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
36 Emergency MOTION in Limine to Videotape Sign Language Testimony by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/3/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
37 PROPOSED EMERGENCY ORDER re motion requesting videographer (Morocco, Maria) Modified on 2/17/2006 (eg, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/16/2006)

02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/23/2006 02/24/2006 02/27/2006
02/28/2006
03/01/2006 03/02/2006 03/03/2006
03/03/2006 03/03/2006 03/03/2006 03/03/2006 03/03/2006

38 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion Requesting that the Court provide a videographer to record proceedings. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 2/17/06. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
39 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice the admission of John W. Campbell by Federal Express Corporation. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
40 MARGINAL ORDER granting 39 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice the admission of John W. Campbell. Signed by Clerk on 2/17/06.(FOR DOCUMENT #40 SEE DOCUMENT #39) (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
41 Proposed Exhibit List Revised by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
42 Witness List by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
43 Proposed Jury Instructions by Federal Express Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Special Verdict Form)(Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
44 Proposed Voir Dire by Federal Express Corporation. (Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
45 MOTION in Limine concerning asl interpreters by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/10/2006 (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
46 RESPONSE to Motion re 45 MOTION in Limine concerning asl interpreters filed by Federal Express Corporation. Replies due by 3/9/2006. (Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
47 Proposed Exhibit List (Amended) with Exhibits by Federal Express Corporation.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 4)(Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
Jury Trial Day #1; Voir Dire held on 2/27/2006; American Sign Language Interpreters sworn: Tona Swaggert and Wendy Harmon; Hearing Re: pending motions "Granted" in part and "Denied" in part, for reasons stated in open Court;Jurors sworn and examined on voir dire; Jurors sworn before Judge William D Quarles Jr.. (Court Reporter Martin Giordano.) (rhl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
Jury Trial Day #2; Oral Motion of defendant for judgment as a matter of law made at the conclusion of plaintiff's case−in−chief −"Denied"−, for reasons stated in open Court held on 2/28/2006 before Judge William D Quarles Jr.. (Court Reporter Martin Giordano.) (rhl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
Jury Trial Day #3 held on 3/1/2006 held before Judge William D Quarles Jr.. (Court Reporter Martin Giordano.) (rhl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
Jury Trial Day #4 held on 3/2/2006 held before Judge William D Quarles Jr.; VERDICT in favor of plaintiff and against defendant (Court Reporter Martin Giordano.) (rhl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
48 JUDGMENT ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $8,000.00 compensatory damages and in the sum of $100,000.00 punitive damages. Interest Rate 4.72%. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/3/06. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
49 DEFENDANT'S AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by Federal Express Corporation.. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
50 PLAINTIFF'S REVISED EXHIBIT LIST by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
51 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
Jury Notes. (FILED SEPARATELY)(eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
52 COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS. (FILED SEPARATELY) (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/03/2006 03/03/2006 03/07/2006 03/09/2006 03/24/2006 03/27/2006 04/04/2006 04/10/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006
05/09/2006 06/16/2006
06/16/2006
06/28/2006 07/05/2006 08/29/2006
09/08/2006

53 CERTIFICATION − EXHIBITS TO BE SUBMITTED TO JURY (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
54 Stipulation re: Return of exhibits to Counsel. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
55 MOTION for Judgment NOV as to Punitive Damages by Federal Express Corporation. Responses due by 3/24/2006 (Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
56 MOTION Equitable Relief by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 55 MOTION for Judgment NOV as to Punitive Damages filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 4/7/2006. (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
58 RESPONSE in Opposition re 56 MOTION Equitable Relief filed by Federal Express Corporation. Replies due by 4/10/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Rita W. Black)(Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
59 REPLY to Response to Motion re 55 MOTION for Judgment NOV as to Punitive Damages filed by Federal Express Corporation. (Efkeman, Edward) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
60 REPLY to Response to Motion re 56 MOTION Equitable Relief filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
61 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 4/25/06. (egs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
62 ORDER denying 55 Motion of Defendant for Judgment, granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion of Plaintiff for equitable relief. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 4/25/06. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A) (egs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
63 BILL OF COSTS by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) (LENGTHY EXHIBIT REC'D 5/9/06) Modified on 5/10/2006 (hml, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
64 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 62 Order on Motion for Judgment NOV, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 61 Memorandum Opinion by Federal Express Corporation. Filing fee $ 455 Receipt #14637009758. (Efkeman, Edward) Modified on 6/16/2006 (sls, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/16/2006)
65 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 64 Notice of Appeal,. IMPORTANT NOTICE: To access forms which you are required to file with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit please go to http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov and click on Forms &Notices. (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
USCA Case Number 06−1724 for 64 Notice of Appeal, filed by Federal Express Corporation. Case Manager − Jackie Brown (bmh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
66 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for proceedings held on 2/27/06 thru 3/2/06 before Judge Quarles, re 64 Notice of Appeal. Transcript due by 8/29/2006. (Court Reporter: Martin Giordano)(sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
67 ORDER of USCA "DIRECTING" that the USCA EXTENDS the time for filing the transcript without sanctions to 9/8/06 as to 64 Notice of Appeal, filed by Federal Express Corporation. (Court Reporter: Martin Giordano) (sls, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 9/1/2006 (sls, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 08/30/2006)
68 ORDER of USCA "DIRECTING" that the USCA EXTENDS the time for filing a transcirpt without Sanctions to 10/10/06 as to 64 Notice of Appeal, filed by Federal Express Corporation (Court Reporter: Martin Giordano) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/2006)

10/13/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/25/2006 01/23/2008 03/27/2008

69 ORDER of USCA "DIRECTING" that the USCA EXTENDS the time for filing the transcript to 10/20/06 as to 64 Notice of Appeal, filed by Federal Express Corporation (Court Reporter: Martin Giordano) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
70 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 2/27/06 before Judge Quarels, re 64 Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: Martin Giordano. (Filed Separately) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
71 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 2/28/06 before Judge Quarles, re 64 Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: Martin Giordano.(Filed Separately) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
72 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 3/1/06 before Judge Quarles, re 64 Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: Martin Giordano. (Filed Separately) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
73 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 3/2/06 before Judge Quarles, re 64 Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: Martin Giordano. (Filed Separately) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
74 Certificate of Clerk certifying the record is complete for appeal purposes re: 64 Notice of Appeal. (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
75 JUDGMENT of USCA (certified copy)"AFFIRMING" the judgment of the District Court as to 64 Notice of Appeal, filed by Federal Express Corporation. (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
76 MANDATE of USCA as to 64 Notice of Appeal, filed by Federal Express Corporation (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

 
 EEOC Wins Disability Bias Suit Against FEDEX

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-2-06.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THURSDAY, March 2, 2006

CONTACT: Debra Lawrence Supervisory Trial Attorney (410) 962-4349
Erica Cryor Program Analyst (410) 962-4194 TTY: (410) 962-6065

EEOC WINS DISABILITY BIAS SUIT AGAINST FEDEX
Jury Rules Federal Express Must Pay $108,000 for Failure to Accommodate Deaf Employee
BALTIMORE -- A federal jury today found in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its employment discrimination lawsuit against Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). EEOC had charged the Memphis, Tenn.-based global shipping giant with failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to Ronald Lockhart, a profoundly deaf employee who worked as a package handler at the company's Baltimore Ramp.
The suit charged Federal Express with violating the ADA when it failed to provide reasonable accommodations to Lockhart in the form of American Sign Language interpreters, despite his repeated requests. The jury found FedEx liable for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 for its knowing failure to accommodate Lockhart as well as compensatory damages of $8,000 for the loss of the accommodation itself. The EEOC's lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Maryland on September 30, 2004 (Case No. 04 CV-3129) after the agency first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
"This verdict sends victims and their employers a big message,"said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. "Employers must provide reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. It is the employer's responsibility to demonstrate that it is committed to fully adhere to the requirements of the ADA on behalf of disabled employees, and that they are not to be treated like second-class citizens."
Title I of the ADA prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments. In Fiscal Year 2005, the EEOC received 14,893 charge filings from individuals alleging disability discrimination, filed 46 ADA lawsuits against employe
rs, and recovered more than $48 million in total monetary benefits through enforcement and litigation.
The EEOC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the nation's anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on March 2, 2006.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

7/10/2007 1:39 PM