by Matthew J. LaMourie, Esq.

In our Spring 2003 Newsletter, we discussed the pre-trial rulings in an age discrimination matter, Currier v. United Technologies Corporation, and described it as a matter that deserved attention “by any employer wrestling with decisions concerning a potential reduction in force (RIF).”  On January 15, 2004, a jury in U.S. District Court in Portland rendered a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, which was subsequently entered as a judgment in excess of $376,000.  Unless a post-trial settlement is negotiated, a new round of motions will soon be underway, including plaintiff’s demand for frontpay and his petition for attorney’s fees.

Durwood Currier was 61 when he was fired from Pratt & Whitney’s North Berwick plant, where he had worked since it opened in 1979.  He later became a business unit manager and oversaw more than 200 workers.  He was one of five people fired in a 2000 layoff.  At trial, Currier claimed his supervisor used workers’ potential future contributions to decide whom to fire -- a calculation he says was inherently biased against older workers.

The pro-plaintiff result in Currier demonstrates the relative risks and unpredictability associated with trying a matter to a jury.  Although it often becomes difficult for an employer to settle an employment dispute following the denial of a summary judgment motion, the recent trend in Maine toward pro-plaintiff jury verdicts in employment litigation should serve to motivate employers, their insurance carriers and legal counsel to rededicate themselves to having realistic, thorough assessments of the employer’s liability exposure even before a civil action is filed.

In Currier, the judge handling pre-trial motions challenged both the employer’s profferred justifications for Mr. Currier’s layoff and the documentary proof provided during the summary judgment process to support those justifications.  In addition, she rejected as inadmissible documents offered by Pratt & Whitney to show how Mr. Currier fared in relation to other unit managers according to a set of objective evaluative criteria.  Once Mr. Currier’s age discrimination claims survived summary judgment, the economics of his lawsuit changed appreciably in his favor.  The cost of a potential settlement, at that point, increased dramatically for Pratt & Whitney.

The jury was unanimous in awarding Mr. Currier $101,580 in lost wages and $275,000 to compensate for “pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish (and) loss of enjoyment of life.” Although the jury did not find that the discrimination was willful, which would have resulted in additional penalties, that was nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory for the defendant.