- Boudin, CJ, Craig Goulet, Vs. New Penn Motor Express, INC., and Teamsters Local 25
Craig Goulet appeals from the verdict in favor of defendant New Penn Motor Express, by the United States District Court. He alleged for reinstatement of his employment and for breach of a labor agreement by New Penn. Held, The jury was aware of the requirements for reinstatement set out by the NEJAGC's resolution of Goulet's grievance. Further, evidence at trial strongly suggested that Goulet remained severely disabled, and the jury was free to draw further inferences from this as to the likelihood of his having been reinstated. It would have been reasonable for the jury to conclude that Goulet had never satisfied the conditions of the award provisionally allowing his reinstatement, that he was not physically capable of work during the period the call list was in effect, and that the unexplained appearance of his name on the November 2001 list was an aberration rather than reflective of his actual reinstatement. The question of Goulet's ability to work affected whether his grievance was meritorious reinstatement. Thus the jury affirms the judgment of the District court.
- Lynch, CJ, John D. Require Vs. American Airlines, INC
A suit alleging that the removal of the plaintiff from a flight and subsequent denial of re-booking violated his rights to be free of race discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. section 1981, a jury verdict for plaintiff is vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the defendant where:
1) the district court failed to instruct the jury on the statutory permission given to air carriers to remove passengers under 49 U.S.C. section 44902(b);
2) the court otherwise erroneously instructed the jury; and
3) no properly instructed jury could return a verdict against the air carrier, and therefore the district court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Manupatra- Legal Database
Manupatra Round Up
No comments:
Post a Comment