About
Knowledge
Center
Wendy's Wins ADA Trial in New York
Federal Judge Reports Plaintiff to U.S. Attorney's Office for
Alleged Witness Bribery
NEW YORK — November 25, 2003 — After deliberating for less than one hour following a two-week trial in the Eastern District of New York, the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" for Wendy's on claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Based on trial testimony that the plaintiff offered a defense witness $200,000 in exchange for false testimony, District Judge Arthur D. Spatt subsequently reported plaintiff Alexander McCourt to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution.
"Wendy's is very happy with this outcome, particularly given the brevity of the deliberation and because it was a hard-fought case," said Anne E. Larson from the Chicago-based firm of Much Shelist. "Not only did the jury see this case for what it was, but the Judge, in reporting plaintiff to the U.S. Attorney's Office, sent the strongest of all possible signals to plaintiffs who do not play by the rules."
Background Information
Alexander McCourt v. Wendy's O.F.H. of New York, Inc., U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York, Case No. 01 CV 7097 (ADS)
Verdict: On Friday, November 21, 2003, the jury returned a verdict for Wendy's on plaintiff's four disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). U.S. District Judge Arthur D. Spatt dismissed plaintiff's Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims earlier in the two-week trial. On Tuesday, November 25, 2003, Judge Spatt reported plaintiff Alexander McCourt to the U.S. Attorney's Office for possible prosecution, based on trial testimony that plaintiff offered a defense witness $200,000 in exchange for false testimony.
Plaintiff's claim: Plaintiff claimed that Wendy's unlawfully failed to promote him to District Manager, stripped him of his Training Store Manager title and assigned him to a different store because of his disability, multiple sclerosis. Plaintiff and another witness testified to purported direct evidence of discrimination — that plaintiff's District Manager allegedly told him that the Director of Area Operations said he was going to take a "wait-and-see approach as to how his MS progressed before making a decision whether to promote him." After he filed a charge of discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR), Wendy's allegedly retaliated against plaintiff by assigning him to a more difficult work area and subjecting him to difficult work conditions, which the defendant knew would force him to resign.
Wendy's defense: Wendy's made the decision not to promote plaintiff from Training Store Manager to District Manager three months before he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, so his illness had nothing to do with its decision. Wendy's made the decision not to promote plaintiff for three primary reasons: 1) He experienced many problems opening a new store, 2) he did not display the kind of leadership Wendy's wanted in a District Manager when he ignored his supervisor's criticisms and asked to be relieved of the new store assignment, and 3) he was a no call/no show for two days after a poor performance at the company's District Manager Assessment.
Wendy's did not strip plaintiff of his job title or otherwise retaliate against him for filing a disability discrimination charge with the NYSDHR. Wendy's was free to assign plaintiff to any of its Long Island stores after affording him five months of paid leave. Wendy's ultimately gave plaintiff the opportunity to return to his exact same Training Store Manager position and store after he complained about the assignment. Plaintiff rejected the offer, resigned and went to work for a competitor in North Carolina with whom he had interviewed weeks earlier while on medical leave.
| |
|