Free Proposed Jury Instructions/Request to Charge - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 1 of 81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT LYNN BALDONI, PLAINTIFF v. THE CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, CHIEF OF POLICE, J. EDWARD BRYMER, AND DOMENIQUE S. THORNTON, DEFENDANTS. : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:01 CV2205(PCD)

MARCH 23, 2004

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, the defendants, City of Middletown, J. Edward Brymer and Domenique Thornton submit the following requests for jury instructions. The defendants reserve the right to supplement, modify and/or withdraw these requested instructions. The plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to amend her Complaint, which was granted by the Court, and the defendants have moved for reconsideration on the ground that the amendment was unduly prejudicial and futile. The plaintiff's original Complaint included causes of action for gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60, et seq. ("CFEPA"). The plaintiff also asserted claims for violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the plaintiff brought claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 2 of 81

In her Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint dated February 19, 2004, the plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to add new allegations, which constitute an entirely new cause of action or claim. The plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint adds new claims related to her failure to be promoted to Deputy Chief in 2003. The plaintiff alleges that she was "discriminated and retaliated against for filing the present lawsuit in that she was denied the promotion to Deputy Chief." The Amended Complaint also removes the plaintiff's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Because of the pending motion, it is presently unclear which allegations will stand at the time of trial. As such, these instructions address all claims in both complaints, and the defendants reserve the right to amend these instructions.

2
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 3 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. ONE: SYMPATHY1 Under your oath as jurors you are not to be swayed by sympathy. You should be guided solely by the evidence presented during the trial, without regard to the consequences of your decision. You have been chosen to try the issues of fact and reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence or lack of evidence. If you let sympathy interfere with your clear thinking there is a risk that you will not arrive at a just verdict. All parties to a civil lawsuit are entitled to a fair trial. You must make a fair and impartial decision so that you will arrive at a just verdict.

1

Leonard B. Sand, et al. Modern Federal Jury Instructions, ¶ 71.01 at 71-20 (1995) (hereinafter "3 Sand"). 3

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 4 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWO: PUBLICITY DURING THE TRIAL2 If there is publicity about this trial, you must ignore it. Do not read anything or listen to any television or radio programs about the case. You must decide this case only from the evidence presented in the trial.

2

3 Kevin F. O'Malley, Jay E. Grenig and Hon. William C. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Civil, § 101.19, at 45 (5th ed. 2000) (hereinafter "3 O'Malley").

4
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 5 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. THREE: CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE I am now going to instruct you as to what is part of the evidence in this case for you to consider in reaching a verdict. The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of each of the witnesses, regardless of which party called the witnesses. It also consists of each document that was admitted into evidence by the Court as an exhibit, regardless of which party submitted the document. Some evidence is admitted for a limited purpose only. When I instructed you during the trial that an item of evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, you must consider it only for that limited purpose and for no other.3 You are to consider only the evidence in the case. But in your consideration of the evidence, you are not limited to the bald statements of the witnesses. In other words, you are not limited to what you see and hear as the witnesses testify. You are permitted to draw, from the facts you find have been proved, such reasonable inferences as you feel are justified in the light of your experience. Finally, you must decide the case, not on the basis of fragments or parts of the evidence, but upon the

3 Edward J. Devitt, et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 70.03, at 8 (4th ed. 1987) (hereinafter "Devitt"). See Ninth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instructions Nos. 1.3-1.6, 3.2-3.3, 3.5. 5
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

3

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 6 of 81

testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them.4 I am now going to instruct you as to what is not evidence in this case. Any evidence as to which an objection is sustained by the Court, and any evidence ordered stricken by the Court, must be entirely disregarded by you.5 If I sustained an objection to a question addressed to a witness, you are to disregard the question entirely -- you are not to draw any inference from the wording of the question, or speculate as to what the witness would have said if permitted to answer the question.6 Anything you may have heard or seen outside the courtroom is not evidence, and must be entirely disregarded.7 Furthermore, statements and arguments of counsel are not evidence in this case, unless made as an agreement or stipulation of fact.8 In particular, statements made by counsel in their opening or closing remarks or in the asking of questions of witnesses do not constitute any evidence whatsoever in the case and should be disregarded by you as proof of any facts. You should attach no weight to inferences from questions, apart from the sense and meaning of the answers.

4 5

Devitt, § 70.03, at 7-8. Devitt, § 70.03, at 8. 6 Adapted from Devitt, § 70.01, at 3. 7 Devitt, § 70.03, at 8. 8 Devitt, § 70.03, at 8. 6
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 7 of 81

It is the duty and the right of counsel to address you and explain the testimony to enable you better to understand the questions that you are to decide. However, if counsel inadvertently misstates the law or misstates the evidence, you will follow the law as given to you by the Court in these instructions and not as stated by counsel. And you will take the evidence detailed by the witnesses and shown by the documents introduced instead of the statements of counsel. During the course of this trial you have heard the various attorneys objecting to questions of other counsel. When the other side offers testimony or other evidence the attorney believes was not properly admissible, it is his or her right and duty to object. When I overruled the objection by allowing the testimony or other evidence to be introduced into evidence, I was not expressing any opinion as to the weight or effect of such evidence. The attorneys were raising objections that I either accepted or rejected.9

9

Adapted from Devitt, § 70.01, at 3. 7

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 8 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. FOUR: BURDEN OF PROOF In a civil action like this, the plaintiff must prove every essential element of his claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence. If the proof fails to establish any essential element of the plaintiff's claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the jury must find for the defendants as to that claim. The defendants have the same burden of proof as to their affirmative defenses. To "establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence" means to prove that something is more likely so than not so. In other words, a fair preponderance of the evidence in the case means such evidence as, when considered and compared with the evidence opposed to it, is more convincing and makes you believe that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true. In determining whether any fact in issue has been proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence in this case, you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them. If you should find that all of the evidence is evenly balanced, then the plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof and your verdict must be for the defendants.

8
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 9 of 81

If and only if you determine, after carefully weighing all the evidence, that the facts favor the plaintiff by the standard I have articulated, then he has met the burden of proof.10 As part of your analysis you must be mindful that there are three defendants in this case. In order to recover against a particular defendant, the plaintiff must establish all of the elements of a claim, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, against that particular defendant. Thus, establishing an element or a claim against one defendant does not factor into your analysis of the plaintiff's claims against the other defendants. Your analysis of the plaintiff's claims against the other defendants must be based upon your independent review of the evidence. Similarly, you must analyze each of the plaintiff's claims against each defendant independently.

10

Adapted from 3 Sand, ¶ 75.01, at 75-7. 9

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 10 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. FIVE: INTRODUCTION TO SUBSTANTIVE CHARGES MEMBERS OF THE JURY: Now that I have instructed you on the procedural aspects of the case and your deliberations, I will instruct you on the substance of the case. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to promote her, transferred her to another unit within the Department, and wrongfully denied her the use of a "take-home car." She alleges that these acts constituted gender discrimination and retaliation for making previous complaints of discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60, et seq. ("CFEPA"). The plaintiff also asserts claims for violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the plaintiff brings claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants deny each of these claims. Accordingly, I will first instruct you on what the plaintiff must have proven to establish each of her claims against the defendants. If you conclude that the plaintiff has not proven what he is required to prove, then you must find for the defendants, and you need not consider the matter further.

10
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 11 of 81

If, however, you find that the plaintiff has proven what he is required to prove in order to establish a claim - - then you must consider the defendants' defenses. Accordingly, after I instruct what the plaintiff must prove, I will instruct you on the law relating to the defendants' defenses. The defendants -- in addition to arguing that the plaintiff has not established what he needed to prove -- have asserted affirmative defenses against the plaintiff's claims. For their defense, the defendants maintain that the plaintiff's claims are barred by qualified immunity. The defendants assert that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies contained in the collective bargaining agreement which covers her position. The defendants assert that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the state law discrimination claim, in that the plaintiff did not commence the action within ninety (90) days of receiving a release of jurisdiction from the CHRO. The defendants further assert that the individual defendants are not "employers" under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, and are thus not liable under that act. The defendants claim that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. The defendants claim that the plaintiff has failed to provide timely notice to the City of Middletown of her intention to commence a civil action, as required by Connecticut General Statutes §§ 7-465 and 7101a. The defendants assert that the plaintiff's claims are barred because they were dismissed by the CHRO. The defendants assert that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing all of her claims of discrimination with the CHRO or
11
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 12 of 81

EEOC within the applicable statute of limitations. The defendants assert that they are entitled to legislative immunity or quasi-judicial immunity. The defendants assert that

the plaintiff did not sustain any adverse employment action. The defendants assert that they are entitled to the "same actor" defense. That defense holds that there is no inference of discrimination when the same individual hires or promotes an individual and later subjects them to adverse employment action. Therefore, even if you conclude that the plaintiff has proven the basic elements of his claims, if you conclude that the defendants have proven any of their defenses you must find for the defendants.

12
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 13 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. SIX: MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS AND MULTIPLE CLAIMS11 Although there is more than one defendant in this action, it does not follow from that fact alone that if one defendant is liable to the plaintiff, all the defendants are liable. Each defendant is entitled to a fair consideration of the evidence. You must decide each claim against each defendant separately. You must not be influenced in deciding the claim against one defendant by the claims against the others. In sum, you must decide whether the plaintiff has proven each of the elements of each of his claims against each defendant separately. Moreover, if you find against a defendant on one claim, that does not mean you should find against him or her on all the claims. Each claim has to be examined independently.

Adapted from 3 O'Malley, § 103.14, at 119. See Ninth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 3.11. 13
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

11

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 14 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. SEVEN: GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.12 In this case the plaintiff makes a claim against the defendant, City of Middletown, under the Federal Civil Rights statutes that prohibit employers from discriminating against employees in the terms and conditions of their employment because of the employee's gender. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that she was transferred to a another position, denied the use of a "take-home" car, and denied a promotional opportunity by the defendant because of her gender. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was discriminated against in any way and asserts that the plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action. In order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the Plaintiff was transferred, denied the use of a "take-home"

car, and denied a promotional opportunity by the defendants; and Second: That the Plaintiff's gender was a substantial or motivating factor that

prompted the defendant to those actions. In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues.

12

See Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 1.2.1 14

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 15 of 81

You should be mindful that the law applicable to this case requires only that an employer not discriminate against an employee because of the employee's gender. So far as you are concerned in this case, an employer may transfer and fail to promote an employee or deny the employee the use of a "take-home" car for any other reason, good or bad, fair or unfair, and you must not second guess that decision or permit any sympathy for the employee to lead you to substitute your own judgment for that of the defendant even though you personally may not favor the action taken and would have acted differently under the circumstances. Neither does the law require an employer to extend any special or favorable treatment to employees because of their gender. On the other hand, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff's gender was the sole or exclusive reason for the defendant's decision. It is sufficient if the plaintiff proves that gender was a determinative consideration that made a difference in the defendant's decision. If you find in the plaintiff's favor with respect to each of the facts that the plaintiff must prove, you must then decide whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff would not have been promoted or transferred or denied the use of a "take home car" for other reasons even in the absence of consideration of the plaintiff's gender. If you find that the plaintiff would have been transferred, not promoted and denied the use of a "take-home" car for reasons apart from the plaintiff's gender, then your verdict should be for the defendant.
15
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 16 of 81

If you find for the plaintiff and against the defendant on its defense, you must then decide the issue of the plaintiff's damages: In considering the issue of the plaintiff's damages, you are instructed that you should assess the amount you find to be justified by a preponderance of the evidence as full, just and reasonable compensation for all of the plaintiff's damages, no more and no less. Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment and must not be imposed or increased to penalize the defendant. Also, compensatory damages must not be based on speculation or guesswork because it is only actual damages that are recoverable. On the other hand, compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or money; they cover both the mental and physical aspects of injury - - tangible and intangible. Thus, no evidence of the value of such intangible things as emotional and mental anguish has been or need be introduced. In that respect it is not value you are trying to determine, but an amount that will fairly compensate the plaintiff for those claims of damage. There is no exact standard to be applied; any such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence. You should consider the following elements of damage, to the extent you find them proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and no others: (a) Net lost wages and benefits to the date of trial; and
16
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 17 of 81

(b)

Emotional pain and mental anguish.

You are instructed that any person who claims damages as a result of an alleged wrongful act on the part of another has a duty under the law to "mitigate" those damages - - that is, to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity that may have existed under the circumstances to reduce or minimize the loss or damage. So, if you should find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff failed to seek out or take advantage of a business or employment opportunity that was reasonably available under all the circumstances shown by the evidence, then you should reduce the amount of the plaintiff's damages by the amount that could have been reasonably realized if the plaintiff had taken advantage of such opportunity.

17
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 18 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. EIGHT: ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.13 To impose liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's Title VII, CFEPA and constitutional claims, you must determine whether the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered an adverse tangible employment action. An adverse tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, undesirable reassignment, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits. An adverse tangible employment action in most cases inflicts direct economic harm. As a general proposition, only a supervisor, or other person acting with the authority of the company, can cause this sort of injury. Adverse tangible employment actions are the means by which the supervisor brings the official power of the enterprise to bear on subordinates. An adverse tangible employment action requires an official act of the enterprise, a company act.

13

See Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761-62 (1998). 18

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 19 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. NINE: EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER TITLE VII.14 As a precondition to filing a Title VII claim in federal court, a plaintiff must first file a complaint within 300 days of any alleged adverse employment actions with the EEOC or the CHRO. If you find that the plaintiff did not file a timely claim with the EEOC or CHRO with regard to any adverse employment actions alleged in the Complaint, you must find for the defendants with regard to that adverse employment action.

14

See Fitzgerald v. Henderson, 251 F.3d 345, 358-59 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 922; National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 106, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 2068 (2002). 19
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 20 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TEN: GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT.15

In this case, the plaintiff has also claimed that the defendants City of Middletown, J. Edward Brymer and Domenique Thornton, discriminated against her based on her gender, in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. You should apply the same analysis to this claim that you used in determining liability under the federal Title VII discrimination claim.

15

See Beason v. United Technologies Corp., 213 F.Supp.2d 103, 115-116 (D.Conn. 2002). 20

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 21 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. ELEVEN: EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE CONNECTICUT FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT.16

As a precondition to filing a Title VII claim in federal court, a plaintiff must first file a complaint within 180 days of any alleged adverse employment actions with the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). If you find that the plaintiff did not file a timely claim with the CHRO with regard to any adverse employment actions alleged in the Complaint, you must find for the defendants with regard to that adverse employment action.

16

See Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-82(e); State v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, 211 Conn. 464, 472 (1989). 21

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 22 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWELVE: TIMELY FILING OF STATE LAW DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS.17 Under the law, the plaintiff was required to file suit on her state law discrimination claim within ninety days of receiving a Release of Jurisdiction from the CHRO. If you find that the plaintiff did not do so, you must find for the defendants on this count.

See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-101; Angelsea Productions, Inc. v. CHRO, 236 Conn. 681, 694, 674 A.2d 1300 (1996). 22
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

17

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 23 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. THIRTEEN: TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIM.18 The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, City of Middletown, retaliated, that is, took revenge against the plaintiff because the plaintiff had previously taken steps seeking to enforce the plaintiff's lawful rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. You are instructed that those laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace also prohibit any retaliatory action being taken against an employee by an employer because the employee has asserted rights or made complaints under those laws. So, even if a complaint of discrimination against an employer is later found to be invalid or without merit, the employee cannot be penalized in retaliation for having made such a complaint if you find that the employee made the complaint as a means of seeking to enforce what the employee believed in good faith to be her lawful rights. To establish "good faith," however, it is insufficient for the plaintiff to merely allege that her belief in this regard was honest and bona fide; the allegations and the record must also establish that the belief, though perhaps mistaken, was objectively reasonable. In order to establish the claim of unlawful retaliation, therefore, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That she engaged in statutorily protected activity, that is, that she in good faith asserted claims or complaints of discrimination prohibited by federal law;

18

See Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 1.9.3 23

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 24 of 81

Second: That an adverse employment action then occurred; Third: That the adverse employment action was causally related to the plaintiff's statutorily protected activities; and Fourth: That the plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate or legal result of such adverse employment action. In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues. For an adverse employment action to be "causally related" to statutorily protected activities it must be shown that, but for the protected activity, the adverse employment action would not have occurred. Or, stated another way, it must be shown that the protected activity by the plaintiff was a substantial, motivating cause that made a difference in the defendant's decision. You should be mindful, however, that the law applicable to this case requires only that an employer not retaliate against an employee because the employee has engaged in statutorily protected activity. So far as you are concerned in this case, an employer may fail to promote or otherwise adversely affect an employee for any other reason, good or bad, fair or unfair, and you must not second guess that decision or permit any sympathy for the employee to lead you to substitute your own judgment for that of the defendant even though you personally may not approve of the action taken and would have acted differently under the circumstances.
24
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 25 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. FOURTEEN: THE EFFECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING ON THE PLAINTIFF'S DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS.19

When the CHRO dismisses a discrimination or retaliation complaint, that dismissal has a preclusive effect on those claims in federal court. If you find that the CHRO dismissed the plaintiff's administrative discrimination complaint regarding the alleged adverse employment actions at issue here, you must find for the defendants on the federal and state law discrimination and retaliation claims.

19

See Kalanquin v. Heublein, Inc., 1999 WL 1249285 (D. Conn. June 21, 1999); Mitchell v. National Broadcasting Co., 553 F.2d 265, 271 (2d Cir. 1977). 25
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 26 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. FIFTEEN: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - NATURE OF THE ACTION20

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated her constitutional rights, specifically her right to free speech and her right to equal protection under the law. The defendants deny that any of their actions during the time in question violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. The defendants claim that they were acting in good faith and that their actions were reasonable.

20

Adapted from 3B Kevin F. O'Malley, Jay E. Grenig and Hon. William C. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Civil, § 164.01 (2001) (hereinafter "3B O'Malley"). See 2 Hon. Douglas B. Wright and William L. Ankerman, Connecticut Jury Instructions (Civil), § 690, at 1065-68 (1993) (hereinafter "Wright & Ankerman"). 26
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 27 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. SIXTEEN: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - THE STATUTE21 The law to be applied in this case is the federal civil rights law which provides a remedy for individuals who have been deprived of their constitutional (or statutory) rights under color of state law. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code states: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State . . . subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

21

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 27

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 28 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. SEVENTEEN: SECTION 1983 BURDEN OF PROOF22 I shall shortly instruct you on the elements of plaintiff's Section 1983 claim. The plaintiff has the burden of proving each and every element of his Section 1983 claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence. If you find that any one of the elements of plaintiff's Section 1983 claim has not been proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, you must return a verdict for the defendants.

22

Adapted from 4 Sand, ¶ 87.03, at 87-67. 28

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 29 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. EIGHTEEN: ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 1983 CLAIM23 To establish a claim under Section 1983, the plaintiff must establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, each of the following four elements: First, that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; Second, that this conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Third, that the defendants' acts were the proximate cause of the injuries and consequent damages sustained by the plaintiff, and Fourth, that the actions of the defendants which caused the alleged loss were intentional or reckless. I shall now examine each of the three elements in greater detail.

23

4 Sand, ¶ 87.03 [1], at 87-68. See Ninth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 11.1. 29

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 30 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. NINETEEN: FIRST-ELEMENT - ACTION UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW24 The first element of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendants acted under color of state law. The phrase "under color of state law" is a shorthand reference to the words of Section 1983, which includes within its scope action taken under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state (or territory or the District of Columbia). The term "state" encompasses any political subdivision of a state, such as a county or city, and also any state agencies or a county or city agency. Action under color of state law means action that is made possible only because the actor is clothed with the authority of the state. Section 1983 forbids action taken under color of state law where the actor misuses power that he or she possesses by virtue of state law. An actor may misuse power that he or she possesses by virtue of state law even if his or her acts violate state law; what is important is that the defendant was clothed with the authority of state law, and that the defendant's action was made possible by virtue of state law.

In order for an act to be under color of state law, the act must be of such nature and committed under such circumstances that it would not have occurred except for the
24

4 Sand, ¶ 87.03[2], at 87-69, 87-71. See 3B O'Malley, § 165.40 at 636-37; Ninth Circuit Pattern Jury 30

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 31 of 81

fact that the defendants were clothed with the authority of the state - that is to say, the defendants must have purported or pretended to be lawfully exercising their official power while in reality abusing it. The act of a state official in pursuit of his or her personal aims that is not accomplished by virtue of his or her state authority is not action under color of state law merely because the individual happens to be a state officer.

Instructions, Instruction No. 11.2. 31
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 32 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWENTY: SECOND ELEMENT DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT25 The second element of the plaintiff's claim is that he was deprived of a constitutional right by one or more of the defendants. In order for the plaintiff to establish the second element, he must show these things by a fair preponderance of the evidence: first, that a defendant committed the acts alleged by the plaintiff; second, that those acts caused the plaintiff to suffer the loss of a constitutional right; and, third, that, in performing the acts alleged, the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly. If the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted negligently, the defendant cannot be held liable.

25

Adapted from 4 Sand, ¶ 87.03 [3], at 87-74. 32

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 33 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWENTY-ONE: SECOND ELEMENT DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION26 To prevail on her First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff must prove to you that her protected speech played a substantial part in the alleged adverse employment action at issue. In this case the plaintiff claims that the defendants, while acting "under color" of state law, intentionally deprived the plaintiff of the plaintiff's rights under the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that while the defendants were acting under color of authority of the State of Connecticut as employees and officials of the City of Middletown they intentionally violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution when the defendants transferred, failed to promote the plaintiff and denied her a "take-home" car because of the plaintiff's exercise of the right of free speech. The defendants deny that they violated the plaintiff's rights in any way, and assert that their conduct was, at all times objectively reasonable. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, every public employee has the right to "freedom of speech" addressing issues of public concern. In this case, therefore, if you find that the plaintiff was discriminated against for engaging
26

See Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 1.2.1; Ezekwo v. New York City Health & 33

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 34 of 81

in speech activity concerning matters of public concern, you should find for the plaintiff. The law further provides that a person may sue in this Court for an award of money damages against anyone who, "under color" of any state law or custom, intentionally violates the plaintiff's rights under the Constitution of the United States. In order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the actions of the defendants were "under color" of the authority of the State; Second: That the plaintiff engaged in speech activity concerning a matter of public concern; Third: That such speech activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendants' decision to transfer and not promote the plaintiff and to deny her a "takehome" car; and Fourth: That the defendants' acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the plaintiff. In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues.

Hosps. Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 780 (2d Cir.1991); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)). 34
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 35 of 81

A state or local official acts "under color" of the authority of the state not only when the official acts within the limits of lawful authority, but also when the official acts without or beyond the bounds of lawful authority. In order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color" of state law, however, the unlawful acts must be done while the official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of official duty; that is, the unlawful acts must be an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because of the position held by the official. You should be mindful that the law applicable to this case requires only that a public employer refrain from taking action against a public employee because of the employee's exercise of protected First Amendment rights. So far as you are concerned in this case, a public employer may transfer, fail to promote, and denying car use to a public employee for any other reason, good or bad, fair or unfair, and you must not second guess that decision or permit any sympathy for the employee to lead you to substitute your own judgment for that of the defendants even though you personally may not approve of the action taken and would have acted differently under the circumstances. Neither does the law require that a public employer extend any special or favorable treatment to public employees because of their exercise of protected First Amendment rights. On the other hand, in order to prove that the plaintiff's protected speech activities were a "substantial or motivating" factor in the defendants' decision, the plaintiff does
35
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 36 of 81

not have to prove that the protected speech activities were the only reason the defendants acted against the plaintiff. It is sufficient if the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff's protected speech activities were a determinative consideration that made a difference in the defendants' adverse employment decision. Finally, for damages to be the proximate or legal result of wrongful conduct, it must be shown that, except for such conduct, the damages would not have occurred. If you find in the plaintiff's favor with respect to each of the facts that the plaintiff must prove, you must then decide whether the defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff would have been transferred, not promoted and denied a "take-home" car for other reasons even in the absence of the protected speech activity. If you find that the plaintiff would have been transferred, not promoted and denied the sue of the car for reasons apart from the speech activity, then your verdict should be for the defendants. I will now explain the rules or principles of law you must apply in deciding the plaintiff's claim against the City. Ordinarily, a corporation - - including a public body or agency such as the City of Middletown- - is legally responsible for the acts of its employees carried out in the regular course of their job duties as employees. This is known in the law as the doctrine of "respondeat superior" which means "let the superior respond" for any losses or injuries wrongfully caused by its employees in the performance of their jobs.
36
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 37 of 81

This doctrine does not apply, however, in a case such as this where the plaintiff claims a violation of constitutional rights. In such a case it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that she was retaliated against on the basis of protected speech by other employees of the City; rather the City of Middletown can be held liable only if you find that the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional right to free speech was the direct result of a City policy. In order to prevail on the claim against the City the plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the plaintiff was treated differently than other employees in the terms and conditions of her employment by the City; Second: That such different treatment was the intended result of a City policy or custom, as hereafter defined; and Third: That the plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate or legal result of such City policy or custom. In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues. A policy or custom means a persistent, widespread or repetitious course of conduct by public officials or employees that, although not authorized by, or which may even be contrary to, written law or express municipal policy, is so consistent, pervasive and continuous that the City policy makers must have known of it, so that, by their
37
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 38 of 81

acquiescence, such policy or custom has acquired the force of law without formal adoption or announcement. Finally, for damages to be the proximate or legal result of a wrongful City policy or custom, it must be shown that, except for such policy or custom, the damages would not have occurred. If you find for the plaintiff and against the defendants on their defenses, you must then decide the issue of the plaintiff's damages. In considering the issue of the plaintiff's damages, you are instructed that you should assess the amount you find to be justified by a preponderance of the evidence as full, just and reasonable compensation for all of the plaintiff's damages, no more and no less. Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment and must not be imposed or increased to penalize the defendant. Also, compensatory damages must not be based on speculation or guesswork because it is only actual damages that are recoverable. On the other hand, compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or money; they cover both the mental and physical aspects of injury - - tangible and intangible. Thus, no evidence of the value of such intangible things as emotional pain and mental anguish has been or need be introduced. In that respect it is not value you are trying to determine, but an amount that will fairly compensate the Plaintiff for those

38
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 39 of 81

claims of damage. There is no exact standard to be applied; any such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence. You should consider the following elements of damage, to the extent you find them proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and no others: (a) (b) (c) Net lost wages and benefits to the date of trial; Emotional pain and mental anguish. Punitive damages as to the individual defendants, if any. (as

explained in the Court's instructions). You may not assess punitive damages to the City.27 You are instructed that any person who claims damages as a result of an alleged wrongful act on the part of another has a duty under the law to "mitigate" those damages - - that is, to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity that may have existed under the circumstances to reduce or minimize the loss or damage. So, if you should find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff failed to seek out or take advantage of a business or employment opportunity that was reasonably available under all the circumstances shown by the evidence, then you should reduce the amount of the plaintiff's damages by the amount that could have been reasonably realized if the plaintiff had taken advantage of such opportunity.

27

See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748 (1981). 39

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 40 of 81

The plaintiff also claims that the acts of the defendant were done with malice or reckless indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights so as to entitle the plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. If you find for the plaintiff, and if you further find that the individual defendant did act with malice or reckless indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights, the law would allow you, in your discretion, to assess punitive damages against these defendants as punishment and as a deterrent to others. If you find that punitive damages should be assessed against the individual defendants, you may consider the financial resources of the defendants in fixing the amount of such damages and you may assess punitive damages against one or more of the individual defendants, and not others, or against more than one individual defendant in different amounts.

40
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 41 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWENTY-TWO: SECOND ELEMENT DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT: EQUAL PROTECTION28 In this case the plaintiff claims that the defendants, while acting "under color" of state law, intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based on her gender in violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The defendants deny that they violated the plaintiff's rights in any way, and assert that all their decisions were made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. You are instructed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit discrimination against public employees on the basis of gender. And, federal law provides that a person may sue in this Court for an award of money damages against anyone who, "under color" of any state law or custom, intentionally violates the plaintiff's rights under the Constitution of the United States. The rules of law that apply to the plaintiff's claim against the City are different from the law that applies to the plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants, and each claim must be considered separately. I will first explain the rules or principles of law you must apply in deciding the plaintiff's claim against the individual defendants.

28

See Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 1.1.3. 41

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 42 of 81

With respect to the plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants Thornton and Brymer, respectively, the plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the individual defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment based on the plaintiff's gender; Second: That the individual defendant committed such act or acts of discrimination "under color" of state law or authority; and Third: That the individual defendant's act or acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the plaintiff. In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues. A state or local official acts "under color" of the authority of the state not only when the official acts within the limits of the official's lawful authority, but also when the official acts without or beyond the official's lawful authority. In order for unlawful or unconstitutional acts of an official to be done "under color" of state law, however, the acts must be done while the official was purporting or pretending to act in the performance of official duty; that is, the unlawful act must be an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he or she is an official. In this case, therefore, you must determine whether the individual defendant had supervisory authority over the plaintiff in the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's employment, and
42
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 43 of 81

whether such defendant abused or misused that authority by intentionally discriminating against the plaintiff because of the plaintiff's gender. You will note that proof of intentional discrimination on the part of the individual defendant is required; any evidence of mere negligence or the failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising other employees is insufficient. The plaintiff must prove that the individual defendant committed intentionally discriminatory acts, either personally or through the direction of others, or that the defendant knowingly and deliberately acquiesced in discriminatory acts being committed by the defendant's subordinates without intervening to stop such discrimination. For damages to be the proximate or legal result of wrongful conduct, it must be shown that, except for such conduct, the damages would not have occurred. I will now explain the rules or principles of law you must apply in deciding the plaintiff's claim against the City. Ordinarily, a corporation - - including a public body or agency such as the City of Middletown- - is legally responsible for the acts of its employees carried out in the regular course of their job duties as employees. This is known in the law as the doctrine of "respondeat superior" which means "let the superior respond" for any losses or injuries wrongfully caused by its employees in the performance of their jobs. This doctrine does not apply, however, in a case such as this where the plaintiff claims a violation of constitutional rights.
43
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 44 of 81

In such a case it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that she was discriminated against on the basis of gender by other employees of the City; rather the City of Middletown can be held liable only if you find that the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional right to equal protection of law was the direct result of a City policy. In order to prevail on the claim against the City the plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the plaintiff was treated differently than other employees in the terms and conditions of her employment by the City; Second: That such different treatment was the intended result of a City policy or custom, as hereafter defined; and Third: That the plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate or legal result of such City policy or custom. In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues. A policy or custom means a persistent, widespread or repetitious course of conduct by public officials or employees that, although not authorized by, or which may even be contrary to, written law or express municipal policy, is so consistent, pervasive and continuous that the City policy makers must have known of it, so that, by their acquiescence, such policy or custom has acquired the force of law without formal adoption or announcement.
44
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 45 of 81

Finally, for damages to be the proximate or legal result of a wrongful City policy or custom, it must be shown that, except for such policy or custom, the damages would not have occurred. If you find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, you will then consider the issue of the plaintiff's damages. In considering the issue of the plaintiff's damages, you are instructed that you should assess the amount you find to be justified by a preponderance of the evidence as full, just and reasonable compensation for all of the plaintiff's damages, no more and no less. Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment and must not be imposed or increased to penalize the defendant. Also, compensatory damages must not be based on speculation or guesswork because it is only actual damages that are recoverable. On the other hand, compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or money; they cover both the mental and physical aspects of injury - - tangible and intangible. Thus, no evidence of the value of such intangible things as emotional pain and mental anguish has been or need be introduced. In that respect it is not value you are trying to determine, but an amount that will fairly compensate the plaintiff for those claims of damage. There is no exact standard to be applied; any such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence.

45
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 46 of 81

You should consider the following elements of damage, to the extent you find them proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and no others: (a) (b) (c) Net lost wages and benefits to the date of trial; Emotional pain and mental anguish. Punitive damages as to the individual defendants, if any. (as

explained in the Court's instructions). You may not assess punitive damages against the City.29 You are instructed that any person who claims damages as a result of an alleged wrongful act on the part of another has a duty under the law to "mitigate" those damages - - that is, to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity that may have existed under the circumstances to reduce or minimize the loss or damage. So, if you should find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff failed to seek out or take advantage of a business or employment opportunity that was reasonably available under all the circumstances shown by the evidence, then you should reduce the amount of the plaintiff's damages by the amount that could have been reasonably realized if the plaintiff had taken advantage of such opportunity. The plaintiff also claims that the acts of the defendants were done with malice or reckless indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights so as to entitle the plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

46
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 47 of 81

If you find for the plaintiff, and if you further find that the individual defendants did act with malice, or reckless indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights, the law would allow you, in your discretion, to assess punitive damages against those defendants as punishment and as a deterrent to others. If you find that punitive damages should be assessed against the defendants, you may consider the financial resources of the defendants in fixing the amount of such damages and you may assess punitive damages against one or more of the defendants, and not others, or against more than one defendant in different amounts.

29

See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748 (1981). 47

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 48 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWENTY-THREE: THIRD-ELEMENTPROXIMATE CAUSE30 The third element which the plaintiff must prove is that one or more of the defendants' acts were a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by her. A "proximate cause" is defined by the law as a cause which, in natural or continuous sequence, unbroken by any intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause means that there must be a sufficient causal connection between the act or omission of a defendant and any injury or damage sustained by the plaintiff. In order to recover damages for any injury, the plaintiff must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that such injury would not have occurred without the conduct of the defendant. A defendant is not liable if the plaintiff's injury was caused by a new or independent source of an injury which intervenes between the defendant's act or omission and the plaintiff's injury.

30

Adapted from 4 Sand, ¶ 87.03 at 87-79; 3B O'Malley § 121.60 at 265; Ronald W. Eadas, Jury Instructions on Damages in Tort Actions, § 1.05 [1] (5th ed. 2003) ("Eades"). 48
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 49 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWENTY-FOUR: FOURTH ELEMENT STATE OF MIND ­ GENERAL31 In addition to your consideration of the elements, I instruct you that, to establish a claim under Section 1983, the plaintiff must show that one or more of the defendants acted intentionally or recklessly. If you find that the acts of a defendant were merely negligent, then, even if you find that the plaintiff was injured as a result of those acts, you must return a verdict for that defendants.

4 Sand, ¶ 87.03 at 87-75; Wright & Ankerman, § 690, at 1067-68. See Ninth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 11.1. 49
One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

31

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 50 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWENTY-FIVE: STATE OF MIND ­ INTENTIONAL32 An act is intentional if it is done knowingly, that is if it is done voluntarily and deliberately and not because of a mistake, accident, negligence or other innocent reason. In determining whether each defendant acted with the requisite state of mind, you should remember that while witnesses may see and hear and so be able to give direct evidence of what a person does or fails to do, there is no way of looking into a person's mind. Therefore, you have to depend on what was done and what the people involved said was in their minds and your belief or disbelief with respect to those facts.

32

Adapted from 4 Sand, ¶ 87.03 at 87-76. See Wright & Ankerman, § 690, at 1067-68. 50

One Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103

HALLORAN & SAGE LLP

Phone (860) 522-6103 Fax (860) 548-0006 Juris No. 26105

Case 3:01-cv-02205-PCD

Document 57

Filed 03/23/2004

Page 51 of 81

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. TWENTY-SIX: STATE OF MIND ­ RECKLESSNESS33 An act is reckless if done in conscious disregard of its known probable consequences. In determining whether a defendant acted with the requisite recklessness, you should remember that while witnesses may see and hear and so be able to give direct evidence of what a person does or fails to do, there is no way of looking into a person's mind. Therefore, you have to depend