A.ĭefendants contend that Plaintiff did not establish a reasonable belief necessary to sustain his retaliation claim because Plaintiff did not have a viable discrimination claim under Fourth Circuit law. Additionally, the proper remedy for an inconsistent verdict is to grant a new trial however, the Court must determine whether the jury's verdict can be sustained or reconciled on any reasonable theory. In determining whether to grant a new trial, the Court may weigh the evidence and consider credibility, and the Court has wide discretion in making its determination. When an alternative motion for new trial is made, the Court may, in its discretion, order a new trial instead of granting JMOL. The evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. The movant is entitled to JMOL if the non-movant failed to prove an essential element of his case. JMOL is proper when, without weighing the credibility of the evidence, only one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment exists. 386 (D.Md.1997).ĭefendants advance a two-pronged attack on the jury's verdict, contending that Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants retaliated against him because he has no claim of same-sex sexual harassment under Fourth Circuit case law, and that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his state law wrongful discharge claims because Title VII cannot serve as a basis for such a claim under Maryland law, and because the jury found that Rigidply did not retaliate against Plaintiff solely because he filed a workers compensation claim. The jury awarded Plaintiff $15,000 in compensatory damages, and the Court, on Plaintiff's motion, entered judgment against Defendants in the amount of $72,280.01, which included the jury's $15,000 damages award and $57,280.01 in back pay, interest, and front pay by reported Opinion and Order dated November 24, 1997. The jury also found that Defendants did not retaliate against Plaintiff for filing a workers compensation claim, but that they did retaliate for filing the claim and this lawsuit. Although the jury determined that Rigidply employee Leonard Orendorf did not sexually harass Plaintiff, the jury did find that Rigidply retaliated against Plaintiff, thereby violating Title VII, and that Rigidply was liable for Plaintiff's termination. The case was tried to a jury in June 1997. This Title VII same-sex sexual harassment case is before the Court on Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or for new trial, and on Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees. Today the Rigidply Rafters name continues as a testament to the superior work produced by this family owned business.RIGIDPLY RAFTERS, INC., et al. Construction continued throughout the winter of 1985-86 and was completed March 17, 1986. Facing another major decision, the family and business partners chose to rebuild the Maryland plant. Panel Van Fire struck the corporation yet again this time destroying the Maryland plant in 1985. Employees from the Pennsylvania plant worked night shifts at the Maryland plant to continue to fill customer orders until the Myerstown plant was rebuilt. This new plant proved to be invaluable when the Myerstown facility was destroyed by fired in 1972. and Emanuel and Edna Miller to establish a truss plant in Oakland, MD. The year 1971 brought big changes which included an agreement between Rigidply Rafters, Inc. Rigidply’s unmatched quality, people and service continue today as Rigidply remains the premier truss supplier in the Northeast. Trusses could then be lifted directly from our truck to the roof or floor system. Building on Rigidply’s reputation for outstanding quality and service, our first crane truck was put into service in 1964. started manufacturing engineered, metal-plated wood trusses for roof and floor applications. is a family owned business that has been in continuous operation since 1954.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |