Walther v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 145

JUDGMENT dated *6/2/10* entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff pursuant to order signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/1/10. (Kastilahn, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

LARRY WALTHER, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. Complaint Filed: August 13, 2008 The Honorable John A. Mendez

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. I.

This action was brought by Plaintiff Larry Walther ("Plaintiff") against Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff asserted claims for: (1) retaliation under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), (2) retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), (3) interference under the CFRA, (4) failure to engage in the interactive process under the FEHA, (5) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the FEHA, (6) wrongful demotion in violation of public policy, and (7) punitive damages.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On January 20, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant's Motion For Summary

Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication Of Issues. Plaintiff appeared through his counsel of record, Sheri L. Leonard of Henk Leonard. Defendant appeared through its counsel of record, Katherine C. Huibonhoa of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. The Court, having read and considered the moving and responding papers, and all supporting papers, and the oral arguments presented, and the matter having been duly heard, granted Defendant's Motion and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims for: (1) interference under the CFRA, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process under the FEHA, (3) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the FEHA, (4) wrongful demotion in violation of public policy, and (5) punitive damages. (See Docket No. 75.) The Court denied Defendant's Motion as to Plaintiff's claims for: (1) retaliation under the CFRA, and (2) retaliation under the FEHA. (See Docket No. 75.)

JURY TRIAL A jury trial in this matter on the remaining causes of action -- Plaintiff's claims for

retaliation under the CFRA and the FEHA -- commenced on May 24, 2010. Plaintiff appeared through his counsel of record, Robert P. Henk and Sheri L. Leonard of Henk Leonard. Defendant appeared through its counsel of record, E. Jeffrey Grube and Greggory W. Dalton of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP.

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN

- 1-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III.

A.

Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law (Rule 50) At Close Of Plaintiff's Case

On May 27, 2010, at the close of Plaintiff's case-in-chief, Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation under the CFRA and the FEHA, as well as on Plaintiff's claims for emotional-distress damages and front pay. The Court denied without prejudice Defendant's Motion as to Plaintiff's claims for retaliation and emotional-distress damages, but granted Defendant's Motion as to Plaintiff's claim for front pay.

B.

Jury Verdict

On May 28, 2010, a jury of eight individuals returned a verdict on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation under the CFRA and the FEHA as follows: Did Plaintiff Larry Walther prove by a preponderance of the evidence that United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") took an adverse employment action against him because he requested a medical leave of absence for toe surgery in 2007? ________ Yes X No

(See Docket No. 140.) The parties stipulated that this special verdict question resolved both of Plaintiff's remaining legal claims -- retaliation under the CFRA and retaliation under the FEHA.

JUDGMENT Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:

1.

That judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all

claims for relief asserted in the complaint;

2.

That Plaintiff shall take nothing on the complaint; and

3.

That Defendant shall recover its costs in an amount to be taxed by the

Clerk pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Local Rule 292.
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN

- 2-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 1, 2010 / s/ John A. Mendez HON. JOHN A MENDEZ Judge, United States District Court Presented by: PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP By: Greggory W. Dalton Greggory W. Dalton Attorneys for Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. s/

LEGAL_US_W # 64864140.1

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN

- 3-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com