 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
that the trial court erred in denying his motion for prejudgment interest. Defendants, in their first cross-assignment of error, assert that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial on the ground that the jury's verdict was influenced by passion or prejudice. In their second cross-assignment of error, defendants argue that the remitted punitive damages award of $4,000,000 remains unconstitutionally excessive. In their third cross-assignment of error, defendants contend that the remitted compensatory damages award of $100,000 is grossly excessive. Having determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting a new trial as to plaintiff's age discrimination claim, we find that these assignments of error are moot.
{ } Plaintiff's fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error relate to the trial court's exclusion of certain evidence at trial. Regarding these assignments of error, we preliminarily note that " trial court has broad discretion in the admission and exclusion of evidence. Unless the trial court has clearly abused its discretion, an appellate court should not interfere in its determination." State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19, 25; see, also, Krischbaum v. Dillon (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 58, 66. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
{ } Under his fourth assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence relating to his claim of constructive discharge. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the trial court erroneously excluded from evidence a 1998 article from a newspaper which declared Gary, Indiana, as the most dangerous city in the United States for crime. Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in not permitting plaintiff's counsel to question witnesses regarding the desirability of working in Gary, Indiana, and by excluding from evidence photographs that plaintiff took of Gary, Indiana.
{ } "The test for determining whether an employee was constructively discharged is whether the employer's actions made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have felt compelled to resign." Mauzy,supra, at paragraph four of the syllabus. Regarding the evidence necessary to prove constructive discharge, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated, in Mauzy, as follows:
* * * here is no sound reason to compel an employee to struggle with the inevitable simply to attain the "discharge" label. No single factor is determinative. Instead, a myriad of factors are considered, including reductions in sales territory, poor performance evaluations, criticism in front of co-employees, inquiries about retirement intentions, and expressions of a preference for employees outside the protected group. Nor does the inquiry change solely because an option to transfer is thrown into the mix, lateral though it may be. A transfer accompanied by measurable compensation at a comparable level does not necessarily preclude a finding of constructive discharge. Our review is not so narrowly circumscribed by the quality and attributes of the transfer option itself. * * * Id. at 589.
{ } In this case, the jury held that plaintiff failed to prove that his transfer to Lake County, Indiana, resulted in working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have been compelled to resign from his employment with Abbott. Thus, the jury found that plaintiff had failed to prove that he had been constructively discharged.
{ } Plaintiff argues that the newspa
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.
|
|