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


File Size: 109.4 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 834 Words, 5,079 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9874/105.pdf

Download Proposed Jury Instructions/Request to Charge - District Court of Connecticut ( 109.4 kB)


Preview Proposed Jury Instructions/Request to Charge - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:00-cv-00973-AHN Document 105 Filed O2/16/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
C.A. NO.: 3:00 CV 0973 (AI-IN) (HBF)
TIMOTHY HAYES, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., )
d/b/a EUREST DINING SERVICES )
and CARY ORLANDI, )
)
Defendants. )
____ _)
DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY
Defendants, Compass Group USA, Inc. and Cary Orlandi ("Defendants") hereby request
that the Court give the jury preliminary instructions to provide a framework for receiving the
evidence during trial. Defendants, therefore, request that the Court issue preliminary instructions
to the jury as set forth below:
l. The plaintiff has claimed that the Defendants terminated his employment because
of his age. If Hayes proves that this is true, it would constitute unlawful age discrimination on
the part of the defendants. To prove this claim, Hayes has the burden of proving each and every
one of the following, by a preponderance of the evidence:
l) that he was over 40 years old at the time he was terminated;
2) that he was performing his job competently;
3) that he suffered from an adverse employment decision; and
4) that Compass made the adverse employment decision because of Mr. Hayes’
{00053559.DOC x}

Case 3:00-cv-00973-AHN Document 105 Filed 02/16/2005 Page 2 of 4
age. 1
2. The burden is on Hayes, not the defendants, to prove each and every element of age
discrimination by a preponderance of all the credible evidence. If the evidence should fail to
establish any one of the essential elements of Hayes’ claim, or if the evidence is equally balanced
as to any of the essential elements of Hayes’ claims, then you must find for the defendants.
Matters that are left so doubtful that there is no preponderance either way are not proved in the
legal sense.2
3. If the plaintiff persuades you by a preponderance of the evidence that Compass
discharged him because of his age, then you must consider Compass’ defense that this action was
based upon Hayes’ poor performance. As you consider this, remember that the defendant bears
only the burden of articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his actions. Compass `
does not have to persuade you of this fact by a preponderance of the evidence; rather, it need
only produce enough evidence in support of its claim to create a genuine issue of fact in your
mind.3
4. If Compass has satisfied its burden of production by proffering evidence tending to show
a non—discriminatory reason for the challenged action, Mr. Hayes may introduce evidence that
the reason was nothing more than a pretext for age discrimination. In other words, the plaintiff
may introduce evidence to show that the reasons given by Compass for terminating Mr. Hayes’s
employment were not the real reasons for doing so, @ that the true reason for his termination
was age discrimination. When you consider Mr. Hayes’ evidence that the reason advanced by
1 Board of Education of the Cig; of Norwalk v. Comm. on Human Rights and Opporttmities, 266 Conn. 492, 505
(2003); Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2000).
2 Scaria v. Rubin, 117 F .3d 652, 653- 654 (2d Cir. 1997) ("A1though, the burden of production shifts to the
defendant, the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact of intentional discrimination remains at all times with
the plaintiff") (@g_St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 (1993)).
3 Adapted from Sands, Modern Federal Jury Instructions (Civil), Vol. 5, Instruction 88-36 (2004); Bygie v. Town
ofCrornwell, Bd. ofEduc., 243 F.3d 93, 105 (2d Cir. 2001).
{00053559.DOC /}
2

Case 3:00-cv-00973-AHN Document 105 Filed 02/16/2005 Page 3 of 4
Compass is a pretext, keep in mind that the relevant question is not whether Compass acted with
poor or erroneous judgment. Compass was entitled to make its decision for a good reason, a bad
reason or for no reason at all, so long as the decision was not motivated by unlawful
discrimination.4
Respectfully submitted,
COMPASS GROUP, USA, INC. and
CARY ORLANDI,
By their attorneys,
Christopher A. Kenney, Fed. Bar # CT25017
Margaret H. Paget, Fed. Bar # CT25016
Sherin and Lodgen LLP
101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 646-2000
Lagfence Peikes (ol'0 7713 )
Wiggin & Dana LLP
400 Atlantic Street
P.O. Box 110325
Dated: February 16, 2005 Stamford, CT 06911-03251
4 Adapted from Sands, Modern Federal Jury Instructions (Civil), Vol. 5, Instmction 88-37 (2004); Roge v. NYP
Holdings, Inc., 257 F .3d 164, 168 (2d Cir. 2001)(guoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
143 (2000)).
{00053559.Doc x}
3

Case 3:00-cv-00973-AHN Document 105 Filed 02/16/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Request For Preliminary
Instructions To The Jury was served on this 16th day of February, 2005, by Federal Express
overnight delivery on:
Stephen F. McEleney, Esq.
McEleney & McGrail
363 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106
iiawrence Peikes