On December 21, 2009, Senior Judge John Nixon (from the Middle District of Tennessee) issued the attached opinion in EEOC and Freeman v. Whirlpool, Case No. 3:06-cv-0593, which involved racial and sexual harassment claims brought under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. EEOC – Freeman v Whirlpool Mem Order 12-21-09

After determining that the defendant was liable for the racial/sexual hostile work environment experienced by the intervening plaintiff, Judge Nixon awarded the intervening plaintiff total damages in the amount of $1,073,261. Judge Nixon awarded $773,261 in back pay and front pay. He also awarded $300,000 for compensatory damages. Judge Nixon declined to award punitive damages.

Interestingly, with respect to the award of front pay, Judge Nixon found the intervening plaintiff, as a result of the harassment she experienced, suffered from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder rendering the intervening plaintiff unable able to work. Thus, Judge Nixon awarded the intervening plaintiff front pay to her normal retirement age.

A few weeks we filed suit on behalf of a group of plaintiffs in the Middle District of Tennessee seeking unpaid overtime compensation. See my post dated 11/24/09. The case is Bowman et al. v. New Vision Telecommunications, Inc. et al., 3:09-cv-01115.

The day after the defendants learned of the lawsuit they suspended the plaintiffs without pay for an indefinite period. The reasons offered by the defendants for the suspensions seemed pretextual so we immediately amended the complaint and sued the defendants for unlawful retaliation under 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). We also sought a temporary restraining order asking for our clients to be reinstated pending a preliminary injunction hearing. A TRO was entered by the court and a preliminary injunction hearing was set. The preliminary injunction hearing took place on 12/3 and 12/10.

Late today we received a decision from the court granting our motion for preliminary injunction. The defendants were ordered to return the plaintiffs to work with the same pay and benefits. Further, the defendants were ordered not to retaliate against the plaintiffs or others similarly situated.

It was a great win for our clients needless to say. A copy of the memorandum opinion and order granting preliminary injunction can be accessed by clicking on the links below.

Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

Memorandum Opinion

I spent a beautiful (but cold) Saturday afternoon here in Memphis doing a focus group on an upcoming trial involving a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA. As always, I came away from the session confirming many thoughts, but also having many new questions.

One thing’s for certain: I can’t stress enough the impact that doing a focus group makes in my trial preparation. Not only does a focus group give me tremendous insight to better prepare my client’s case, it also allows me to hone trial strategy so I can see whether my instincts and beliefs about the presentation of evidence/testimony are correct.

Today’s focus group both surprised and pleased me. For one thing, a number of self identified “conservatives” were willing to award my client a substantial sum of money based on their belief that my client had been discriminated against because of her disability. I confess that I generally prefer politically liberal jurors. The thought is that they will be more sympathetic to my client’s plight, as well as the law that my client is suing under. But I am not sure that my own beliefs about the political persusasion of jurors is accurate when it comes to awarding money. In other words, it may very well be that politically conservative jurors will award as much money as politically liberal jurors once they are satisfied that liability on the part of the company has been established.