CourtCases2010

Prevos made an appointment for 7 sharp with david

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: MMISKEY, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellant. ARGUED: Paul D. Ramshaw, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. OPPORTUNITY ON BRIEF: Craig H. Lubben, Elizabeth M. McIntyre, MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & CUMMISKEY, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellant. ON BRIEF: Paul D. Ramshaw, EQUAL COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 211 JUDGES: Before: SUHRHEINRICH, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges. CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SUHRHEINRICH, J., joined. KAREN NELSON MOORE, J., delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINIONBY: CLAY OPINION: [*1090] OPINION CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), defendant, Prevo's Family Market, [**2] Inc., (Prevo's) appeals the district court's order on motion by plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for summary judgment on the issue of liability and award of compensatory damages, back pay, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages and reinstatement of one of its employees, Steven Sharp (Sharp), who has claimed to be HIV positive. The district court held Prevo's unlawfully dismissed Sharp after his refusal to submit to a medical examination and allowed trial on the issues of compensatory and punitive damages. Prevo's post-trial motion for a judgment as a matter of law, which was denied, argued that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages by the jury. For the reasons stated herein, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on the issue of liability and instead enter judgment in favor of Prevo's, holding that Prevo's did not violate the Americans with Disabilities [*1091] Act in its treatment of Steven Sharp. Accordingly, we VACATE the award of compensatory damages, back pay, pre-judgment interest and reinstatement. Having found no liability on the part of Prevo's, we do not reach the issue [**3] of whether its actions warrant an award of punitive damages; therefore, we VACATE the district court's award of punitive damages. I. Factual Background P...
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