Free Report - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Mary H. Beard Admitted Pro Hac Vice FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Building B-3rd Floor Memphis, TN 38125 Telephone: (901) 434-8061 Facsimile: (901) 434-9279 Email: [email protected] FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. Lori A. Higuera (No. 017273) Alec R. Hillbo (No. 020185) 3003 North Central Avenue Suite 2600 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913 Telephone: (602) 916-5000 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Federal Express Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA SEAN L. HARGROW, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES IX; BLACK CORPORATION I-X; WHITE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES I-X, Defendants. DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM AND INTERROGATORIES FOR JURY No. 03-0642 PHX DGC

22 23 24 25 26
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
P H O E N IX

Defendant submits the following proposed verdict form:

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 129

Filed 11/02/2006

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Yes 26
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
P H O E N IX

FORM OF VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT We the jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon our oaths, do find in favor of Federal Express Corporation on all claims.

FOREPERSON

INTERROGATORIES SET NO. 1
RETALIATION CLAIM We unanimously answer the question submitted to us as follows: 1. Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of evidence that any decision-maker at Federal Express Corporation was aware of his protected activity before March 12, 2003? Yes No

If your answer to Question 1 is yes, then answer Question 2. If you answered no, stop here, and skip to Question 5. 2. Did Federal Express Corporation take any adverse employment action against Plaintiff which had a detrimental and substantial effect on the terms and conditions of his employment? Yes No

If your answer to Question 2 is yes, then answer Question 3. If you answered no, stop here, and skip to Question 5. 3. Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of evidence that Plaintiff's engaging in protected activity was a motivating reason for the decision of Federal Express Corporation to take an adverse employment action against him? No

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 129

Filed 11/02/2006

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
P H O E N IX

If your answer to Question 3 is yes, then answer Question 4. If you answered no, stop here, and skip to Question 5. 4. Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of evidence that the retaliatory conduct of Federal Express Corporation in Question 3 above was a substantial factor in causing harm to him? Yes Go on to Question 5. 5. If your answers to the questions in Interrogatories Set No. 1 were all yes, then continue to Interrogatories Set No. 2. If one of your answers in Interrogatories Set No. 1 was no, stop here, answer no further questions, your deliberations are complete. No

INTERROGATORIES SET NO. 2
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES We unanimously answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 1. Were your answers to the questions in Interrogatories Set NO. 1 all yes? Yes No

If your answer to Question 1 is yes, then go to Question 2. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, your deliberations are complete. 2. Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he should be awarded damages to compensate for emotional pain and mental anguish? Yes No

If your answer to Question 2 is yes, then go to Question 3. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, your deliberations are complete. 3. Under the law as given to you in these instructions, what amount of compensatory damages, if any, should Plaintiff be awarded from Federal Express Corporation? AMOUNT: $_________________

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 129

Filed 11/02/2006

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. 10 11 12 13 14 3. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5. 22 23 24 25 26
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
P H O E N IX

INTERROGATORIES SET NO. 3
PUNITIVE DAMAGES We unanimously answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 1. Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an employee who exercises substantial independent authority and judgment in his or her corporate decision making so that his or her decisions ultimately determines corporate policy ratified or aided and abetted retaliation against him with malice, oppression, or fraud? Yes No

If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, stop, answer no further questions, your deliberations are complete. Identify the individual(s) who was an officer, director, or managing agent of Federal Express Corporation who engaged in conduct with malice, oppression, and fraud. [Name of Individual(s)] If you identified an individual in response to Question 2, then answer question 3. If you did not, stop, answer no further questions, your deliberations are complete. Was the individual identified in question 2 acting within the course and scope of his employment? Yes 4. No

Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Federal Express Corporation did not act in a good faith attempt to comply with the law by adopting policies and procedures designed to prohibit such retaliation in the workplace? Yes No

If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5. If you answered no, stop, answer no further questions, your deliberations are complete. Under the law as given to you in these instructions, what amount of punitive damages, if any, should Plaintiff be awarded from Federal Express Corporation? $ After all verdict forms have been signed, this verdict form must be delivered to the clerk.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 129

Filed 11/02/2006

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
P H O E N IX

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006. Respectfully submitted,

By /s/ Mary H. Beard Mary H. Beard (Admitted Pro Hac) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION and Lori A. Higuera Alec R. Hillbo FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Federal Express Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 2, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Mishka L. Marshall Marshall Law Group, P.C. 777 East Thomas Road, Suite 210 Phoenix, AZ 85014

/s/ Mary H. Beard Mary H. Beard

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 129

Filed 11/02/2006

Page 5 of 5