Sansone v. Donahue

Filing 141

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/10/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY SANSONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN BRENNAN, Postmaster General,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13 C 3415

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action by Anthony Sansone ("Sansone") against the United States Postal Service and
the Postmaster General (those defendants are collectively referred to for convenience as the
"Postal Service") went to a jury trial that was completed on March 10, 2017, with the jury ruling
in Sansone's favor and awarding him $300,000 in compensatory damages. Because the nature of
a claim of that type against a United States defendant calls for a determination of equitable relief
by the trial judge, this Court issued a September 7 memorandum opinion and order (the
"Opinion") that analyzed the potential components of such equitable relief and directed counsel
for the litigants "to tender their respective submissions" (Opinion at 7) as to the appropriate
calculation of Sansone's recovery in this action on or before October 5.
Both sides have filed timely responses, and this Court is now in a position to enter a final
judgment. For that purpose this opinion turns first to the Postal Service's 4-page "Brief on the
Calculation of Plaintiff's Damages" (the "Brief," Dkt. No. 139), then continues with an analysis
of Sansone's submission.

At the outset the Postal Service's Brief at 1 states that it "disagrees with certain of the
court's conclusions from the evidence at trial." But the trial evidence to which the Postal
Service's counsel attempts to point was not found to be persuasive by the factfinding jury, and
nothing entitles Plant Manager Ruby Branch's uninformed snap veto of Sansone's
long-established disability accommodation (an accommodation that had existed for more than a
decade, without any adverse incident or threat of one) to override the jury's pro -Sansone
determination.
Nor does the balance of the Postal Service's Brief fare any better. For one thing, the Brief
mischaracterizes Sansone's turndown of the unsuitable proposals that Plant Manager Branch
came up with (rather than her giving thoughtful consideration to, followed by her rational
approval of, the entirely suitable accommodation that Sansone was already receiving) by stating
he "chose to retire" (Brief at 2). It is an impermissible distortion of the facts, as resolved in
Sansone's favor by the jury, to label retirement as his preferred "choice."
And as for the rest of the Postal Service's Brief, its narrative simply does not constitute a
effective response to the analysis in the Opinion. Instead such a reasoned responsive analysis is
provided by Sansone's opinion witness, Professor Charles Linke -- an analysis to which this
opinion now turns.
Sansone's submissions comprise (1) a 4-page "Plaintiff's Memorandum on Calculation of
Lost Compensation" (Dkt. No. 138) coupled with (2) that memorandum's 9-page Ex. 1
(Professor Linke's Declaration, Dkt. No. 138-1) 1 and (3) the Memorandum's Ex. 2 , Sansone's
_________________________
1
Ex. 1's remaining 14 pages set out Professor Linke's extraordinarily impressive CV,
which leaves no room for any quarrel as to his expertise.

-2-

brief September 24, 2017 Declaration that repeats his earlier "Memorandum on the Collateral
Source Issue" (Dkt. No. 136) that this Court's September 7 Opinion had quoted at its pages 4 and
5. As that Opinion stated at page 5 immediately following that quotation:
Nothing in the evidence counters that candid and totally plausible statement. And
viewed in that light, that component of Sansone's entitlement comprises two parts:
the portion ending with the date of judgment and the portion recoverable for the
period from the date of judgment through January 20, 2023.
That evaluation still applies today, and this Court expressly approves Professor Linke's current
damages analysis that credits and builds upon Sansone's "best estimate" of his retirement
timetable (a statement strongly bolstered by his stated goal of maximizing his post-retirement
pension benefits).
Conclusion
With that said, this Court has reviewed and evaluated Professor Linke's Declaration
(Dkt. No. 138-1) and its summary in Sansone's "Memorandum on Calculation of Lost
Compensation" (Dkt. No. 138), and it approves and adopts them in their entirety. Without
having to repeat the particulars, the end results are these:
1.

The Postal Service is ordered to pay Sansone forthwith the total of
(a) $300,000 as awarded by the jury and (b) $828,774, constituting his
"total lost compensation from the date of termination until his estimated
date of retirement, subtracting his 7% pension contribution, adding
prejudgment interest and reducing [the amount] to present value" (as to the
latter component, see Paragraphs 4 through 6 of Professor Linke's
Declaration).

-3-

2.

The Postal Service is further ordered , when Sansone does choose to retire
(whether or not on January 20, 2023 as he now anticipates), to pay him a
pension thereafter at the appropriate percentage (80% if the 2023 date
applies) of the average of his highest three years of pre-retirement
earnings.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 10, 2017

-4-