 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
nce in the same case[.]
Additionally, defendant Abbott's June 7, 2002 motion argued that a new trial should be granted on the grounds that the judgment is not sustained by the weight of the evidence, pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(6). Based on this court's review of the record, we conclude that the trial court conditionally granted a new trial as to plaintiff's age discrimination claim on the basis that the verdict was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Essentially, the trial court found that the evidence at trial was not legally sufficient to support plaintiff's age discrimination claim, and even if it was legally sufficient to support the claim, it was not supported by the weight of the evidence.
{ } We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Antal v. Olde World Products, Inc. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 144, at the syllabus, stated as follows:
When granting a motion for a new trial based on the contention that the verdict is not sustained by the weight of the evidence, the trial court must articulate the reasons for so doing in order to allow a reviewing court to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial.
However, in this appeal, plaintiff has not argued that the trial court failed to articulate the reasons for granting the motion for a new trial.
{ } At trial, evidence was presented that indicated the existence of an in-region reassignment policy, which explained the disparate treatment in this case. Specifically, there was testimony that the preference was to reassign employees within the same region and district, for a variety of reasons. Additionally, testimony indicated that the Gary, Indiana, position was the only position available within plaintiff's region, and therefore plaintiff's reassignment was consistent with this policy. As revealed in the interrogatories, the jury found that defendants demonstrated that plaintiff was transferred to Lake County, Indiana, for reasons other than his age. However, the jury determined that plaintiff demonstrated that the reason(s) were false, and that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of his age based on his transfer to Lake County, Indiana.
{ } As determined above, the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to support an age discrimination claim. However, after thoroughly reviewing the extensive record in this case, and considering the sound discretion provided to the trial court in determining whether to grant a motion for a new trial, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting a new trial on plaintiff's age discrimination claim.
{ } Considering the foregoing, we sustain plaintiff's first and second assignments of error on the basis that the trial court erred in granting the motion for JNOV. We need not, and do not, reach the issue that is raised by plaintiff's first assignment of error of whether the trial court erred in granting the JNOV based upon the "law of the case" doctrine. However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting a new trial as to plaintiff's age discrimination claim. Therefore, to the extent defendant argues under his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in conditionally granting a new trial on the issue of age discrimination, it is overruled.
{ } By his third assignment of error, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for remittitur. Plaintiff's seventh assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for attorneys' fees. In his eighth assignment of error, plaintiff alleges
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|