Professional Documents
Culture Documents
____________________
No. 95-1168
DONALD HOGAN,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
No. 95-1169
DONALD HOGAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET
On
the
cover
sheet,
substitute
"for
Donald
appellee".
Hogan" for
"
____________________
No. 95-1168
DONALD HOGAN,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
No. 95-1169
DONALD HOGAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
____________________
August 18, 1995
____________________
and Phoebe
_______
an employee return
views as
Disabilities
action
brought
difference of
medical
to this
under
the
Americans
with
4561
plaintiff Donald
in this
Circuit on
imposed
by 42 U.S.C.
statute is
damages
A jury verdict in
the
out of a
discrimination
Maine
to work
rise to a case of
the meaning of
1981a(b)(3).
clear, the
to $200,000
is
by the district
first impression
the cap
on ADA
damages
reduction of
affirmed.
favor of the
The
the jury
award of
challenges of
the
defendant
Bangor
and
Aroostook
Railroad
("BAR")
to
the
as
is
Hogan's challenge
to the
denial
of his
motion for
suffered a
prejudgment interest.
Hogan, a
trackman for
to remove a
BAR's
After surgery
Chief
Medical
Officer
and
family
Dr.
Sagall,
practitioner,
pulmonary
function tests,
concluded Hogan
was not
able to
that Hogan
Despite
years.
Hogan's
physician,
Dr.
Cabot,
examination
feeling Dr.
Cabot did
based
was fit.
on
a half
later
Dr. Sagall,
strenuous Hogan's
Sagall,
however, failed
to
discuss Hogan
to work.
with Dr.
Dr.
Cabot,
of
revealed whether
Hogan in
bullous disease.
until
January
directed
so
addition, CAT-scan
1992 would
1993,
to do
after
by the
Hogan had
Railway
brought
suit,
when
Retirement Board.
In
have disclosed, if
emphysema and
Sagall in March
did not
By
an
acknowledged pulmonary
specialist,
Dr. Oldenburg,
that
Dr.
Sagall again
-33
Functional
Capacity
Test
prepared
specifically
for
him.
be
allowed to
return to work.
Hogan
refused to
take the
test.
examinations
by
both
Dr.
Oldenburg and
Dr.
Sagall,
BAR
kept
out of
work
In
despite
the period
that
Hogan was
as family
him that
breadwinner.
he was
Dr. Sagall's
disabled
and the
repeated statements to
disability was
probably
The
awarded
damages.
him $200,000
The district
$200,000
($100,000
pursuant
to
the
1981a(b)(3).
back pay.
district
each in
court
punitive and
in compensatory
compensatory
statutory
In addition,
As an
cap
and
Hogan's award to
$100,000
imposed
by
awarded Hogan
the
same back
42
punitive)
U.S.C.
$70,684.29 in
the MHRA,
pay
the
award of
argues,
-44
U.S.C.
1981a(b)(3) imposes
a cap of $200,000 on
of 42 U.S.C.
The language
1981a(b)(3) provides:
The sum
of
awarded
under this
losses,
emotional pain,
the
mental anguish,
other
each type
____
amount
loss
nonpecuniary
of
section
compensatory
for future
pecuniary
suffering, inconvenience,
of enjoyment
losses,
and
damages
of
life,
and
the
amount
of
section, shall
"[t]he
sum of the
$200,000."
the provision as
. . . and
. .
reached the
same conclusion.
Employment
Opportunity
Commission
_____________________________________
v.
AIC
Security
_______________
The
compensatory
punitive
statutory
statute is clear on
damages shall
interpretation
not exceed
begins
the sum of
$200,000.
with the
"The
language
task of
of the
meaning."
Gately v.
______
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
_____________________________
Cir. 1993),
(1994).
"[W]hen a statute
judicial
S. Ct.
-55
2 F.3d
1832
to an issue
most
extraordinary
circumstance, is
finished."
Estate of
_________
The reduction
$100,000
on
each
type of
jury award
also
damage
award
U.S.C.
2106, see
___
slip op.
at
jury's award
cap.
8 (1st
Exercising our
United States v.
_____________
Cir. Aug.
done by
the
The original
authority
under 28
7, 1995),
of $200,000 in compensatory
$200,000 to
we reinstate
the
the district
was
satisfy the
there is
of the
in punitive damages,
thus
obviating the
need to reach
the question
of punitive
damages.
damages
the jury's
compensatory damages
appraisal of
is excessive
the damages
award of
compensatory
be reduced.1
An award of
if it exceeds
actually incurred.
a rational
See Linn
___ ____
Cir. 1989).
"Generousness
justify
appellate
an
court
in setting
it
v.
6 (1st
not alone
aside."
Id.
___
____________________
1.
-66
(quoting
1982)).
BAR argues
The jury,
however,
but
also
for inconvenience,
enjoyment of life.
mental
anguish,
and loss
of
he had
years he was kept out of work, Hogan, who was married and had
two
young children,
benefits
had
shoe
saw his
annual
factory
insurance.
in
As
order
for
the district
$28,000 and
children, went to
the
family
court noted,
Hogan
income of
to
work in a
have
they were
medical
in "a
that it was
highly unlikely he
had
had most
to return to
of his
result, became
adult life.
depressed, withdrawn,
Hogan,
very upset
and gave up
he
as a
his usual
activities.
depressed."
See
___
v.
Bolden
______
award.
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation
___________________________________________
-77
BAR
Functional
also argues
Capacity
that
Evaluation
Hogan's refusal
Test
to take
("FCE")
specially
in not so ruling.
unconditional
employer's
An employee's rejection of
job
offer
potential
circumstances.
back
does
pay
end
liability,
Opportunity Commission,
______________________
the
erred
an employer's
accrual
absent
of
the
special
v.
Equal Employment
_________________
(1982); Morris v.
______
Cir. 1991).
had to
was
was to
BAR
did
202 (8th
proceed to further
required to obtain a
argument
F.2d 200,
tests and if he
by no means
not
meet
cleared those he
its
Sagall.
BAR's
burden
of
showing
it
made
an
the
district
Hogan undertake
and
court (which
believed
untimely to boot)
offer of reinstatement,
erred.
In the
BAR's suggestion
that
a litigation tactic,
absence of a concrete
not end.
its discretion
in not
law.
interest on
Whether
prejudgment
-88
interest
discretion
is needed to make
of the
a plaintiff whole
district court.
is within the
See Conway
___ ______
v. Electro
_______
Switch Corp.,
_____________
825
F.2d 593,
602
(1st
Cir.
district court
1987).
The
in not awarding
We
interest
do
not
reach
Hogan's
claim
because Hogan
of
admits he
prejudgment
failed to
seek such interest from the district court, and he may not do
so initially on appeal.
F.3d
618, 622
(1st Cir.
1995)
ask
the trial
court for
relief
("A
that
party who
it
available is not
neglects to
might
reasonably
have
thought
would
be
court of appeals
punitive damages,
compensatory damages,
and affirm
issues.
-99
of $200,000 in
the judgment on
all other