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.)
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?