This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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.
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
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.
- Spring '08