 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gallipo v. City of Rutland7/29/2005
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, J., and Grearson, D.J., Allen, C.J. (Ret.), and Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
. Plaintiff, Raymond Gallipo, appeals a superior court order granting summary judgment to defendant, City of Rutland, on plaintiff's retaliatory discrimination claims, and defendant appeals the court's order dismissing its unjust enrichment counterclaim. Plaintiff argues that the court erred in (1) accepting defendant's requests to admit as fact and denying plaintiff a renewed chance to respond; (2) admitting defendant's statement of undisputed facts in its summary judgment motion for plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 56(c)(2); and (3) determining that collateral estoppel applied to the workers' compensation proceedings. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in precluding it from recovering temporary workers' compensation benefits paid to plaintiff. We affirm both appeals.
. The parties appear before this court for the sixth time. See Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 173 Vt. 223, 225-26, 789 A.2d 942, 945 (2001) [hereinafter Gallipo V] (chronicling facts and procedural history of dispute). They have been involved in litigation for over fifteen years surrounding plaintiff's claims of discrimination against his former employer, the City of Rutland, where he worked as a firefighter. In 1995, a jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor, finding that the City discriminated against plaintiff by refusing to promote him because of his religious practices and a learning disability. After this verdict, plaintiff continued to work for the City's fire department and in 1998 began this action.
. This litigation is best viewed in two phases. The first began when plaintiff filed a complaint under the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act, 21 V.S.A. ยงยง 495-496, (VFEPA) naming as defendants the City of Rutland and its fire chief, Gerald Lloyd, and claiming that, in response to his success in the previous trial, the City engaged in unlawful retaliatory employment practices. Plaintiff alleged that these practices included subjecting him to heightened scrutiny, resentment, withholding of computer privileges and training, denial of funeral leave, videotaping him at a training class, denial of workers' compensation , denial of sick leave credits and constant criticism and shunning.
. Plaintiff particularly complained of an incident on September 13, 1996, when a fire department trainer attempted to videotape a training session at which plaintiff was present. Following a heated exchange with the person who was instructed to video the session, plaintiff left the training and did not return to work. Plaintiff claims that he was being targeted by the taping and that the incident caused him great stress. Defendant counters that the taping was routine, done for the benefit of those who could not attend, and not personally aimed at plaintiff.
. Plaintiff never returned to work after the taping incident and on the day of the incident filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that he suffered anxiety and depression as a result of his treatment at the fire department. He articulated four stressors that caused his mental injury: ongoing ridicule from fellow firefighters; use of profane language by other employees; lack of a computer password to perform his role as computer specialist; and the confrontation over the videotaping. The Commissioner of Labor and Industry awarded interim benefits to plaintiff while his claim was pending. Ultimately, the Commissioner denied this claim, concluding that "plaintiff had failed to prove that the mental injury he alleged was caused by work-related stresses from any of the four specified events." Gallipo V, 173 Vt. at
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|