end footnotes 8

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ective, steel-lined gloves; (2) using an individual set of knives and other utensils; and (3) enhanced clean-up procedures. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The issue of damages was tried to a jury, which awarded Sharp $ 10,000 in compensatory damages and $ 45,000 in punitive damages. The district court also ordered reinstatement of Sharp to his former position in the produce department along with back pay and, pending reinstatement, [**12] payment of Sharp's usual wages of $ 192.50 per week. Prevo's posted $ 100,000 supersedeas bond, and the district court approved a stay of the monetary damages judgment but did not stay the order of reinstatement. Prevo's filed a Motion for Stay of Reinstatement Order Pending Appeal, which we granted in March of 1997. We find the medical examination of an alleged HIV positive employee, in the unique circumstances of this particular case, to be job-related and consistent with a business necessity. As such, we do not reach a determination of punitive damages, though it appears that the employer's behavior in this instance was not sufficiently unreasonable or malicious to justify an award of punitive damages in any event. III. Standard of Review This court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Brooks v. American Broadcasting Cos., 932 F.2d 495, 500 (6th Cir. 1991). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to [**13] support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court must determine whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the factfinder or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). IV. Discussion of Liability Medi...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online