Carlus v. Public Health et al

Filing 43

ORDER: The defendants' motion 31 to compel is granted as set forth in the attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/14/12. (Constantine, A.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT RICHEL CARLUS, Plaintiff, v. CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF, PUBLIC HEALTH and STEVE MESSER, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:11cv172(AWT) RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Pending before the court is the defendants' motion to compel.1 (Doc. #31.) The (Doc. #35.) The plaintiff has filed a response to the motion. court rules on the requests at issue as follows: 1. Interrogatory 15 is granted if the plaintiff responds that he is seeking damages for emotional distress. The names, dates of treatment and diagnoses of medical providers who treated the plaintiff for emotional distress are relevant within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(1) to his damages claim of emotional distress. See Perry v. City of New Haven, No. 3:11CV1485(RNC)(DFM), 2012 WL 3887061, at *2 (D. Conn. Sept. 6, 2012). 2. Request 1 for Production 4 is granted. If no responsive Chief Judge Alvin W. Thompson referred the motion to the undersigned. See doc. #32. documents exist, the plaintiff shall so state under oath. 3. Request for Production 7 is granted. If plaintiff alleges any loss of earning capacity, he must provide a computation of those damages. 4. Request for Production 18 is granted. the plaintiff's efforts to obtain Information regarding employment is relevant to mitigation of damages. "A victim of employment discrimination has a duty to attempt to mitigate his or her damages by using 'reasonable diligence in finding other suitable employment.'" Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 231 (1982); see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(g)(1). "This obligation is not onerous and does not require [the victim of discrimination] to be successful" in the attempt to mitigate. Hawkins v. 1115 Legal Service Care, 163 F.3d 684, 695 (2d Cir. 1998). "In order to reduce the meritorious claimant's entitlement to backpay, the defendant employer has the burden of demonstrating that she has failed to attempt to mitigate. This burden may be met by establishing (1) that suitable work existed, and (2) that the employee did not make reasonable efforts to obtain it." Id. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 14th day of November, 2012. ___________/s/________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?