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

Case 3:02-cv-02241-PCD Document 30 Filed 11/14/2003 Page1 of 4
I
1 ID/Mg l
I /‘/ry /4 M _ `
I it S J "°? I/I iw
UNITED STATES DISTRICT co’l.li%iTf} I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I l
IVIAUREEN A. IVIERKLE : l
VS. : NO. 3:02CV2241(PCD) I
CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH : NOVEMBER 14, 2003 I
PLAlNTIFF’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
The plaintiffs respectfully request the court to charge the jury on plaintiffs N
claims as follows: _ _
TITLE VII CLAIM I
The plaintiff claims that the defendant Judicial Branch violated his right to
be free from discrimination at the work place under Title VII. To prevail on a
claim of intentional discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that a defendant had a reason or motive to
discriminate against him in the matter before this court. The plaintiff must prove,
either directly or indirectly, that there is evidence of intentional discrimination.
Direct evidence would include oral or written statements showing a
discriminatory motivation for the defendant's treatment of him. Indirect or
circumstantial evidence would include proof of a set of circumstances that would
allow one reasonably to believe that gender or age was a motivating factor in the l
I
I

, iT;_"'“_T‘rl
{ I _ Case 3:02-cv-02241-PCD Document 30 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 2 of 4
l l
“ i
l
defendants’ failure to promote the plaintiff. [l\/lcDonneIl Douglas Corp. v. Green, J
411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 I
_ (1981); Devitt, Blackmar and Wolff, Federal Jug; Practice and Instructions §
104.03.]
The plaintiff is entitled to prevail in this case if he can show that gender
discrimination was a motivating -- as opposed to determining —- factor in the I
challenged employment decisions or any one of them. [Devitt, etc., § 104.03.]
Direct evidence is evidence of remarks or actions that, if believed, directly
prove that the plaintiffs membership in a protected class was a factor in the
defendants’ adverse employment decision. [Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 j
U.S. 228 (1989).] I
To establish discrimination in failing to promote the plaintiff by using
indirect evidence, the plaintiff must prove what is called a prima facie case of
racial discrimination. To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove
each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that she
was a member of a protected group; (2) that she sought and was qualified for the
position in question; (3) that a position was open; and (4) that despite her
qualifications he was not considered for the position; (5) that the failure of the
defendants consider the plaintiff was motivated by considerations of gender
and/or age. [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); ggg
v. Trustees of University of Arkansas, 821 F.2d 478 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, I
l
l
l
l

Q Case 3:02-cv-02241-PCD Document 30 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 3 of 4
l
“ l
( l
@ 485 U.S. 1034 (1988); Blackwell v. Sun Electric Corp., 696 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. J
1983); Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143 (5th Cir.
1983); Meirl v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 829 (1985);
Geisler v. Folsom, 735 F.2d 991 (6th Cir. 1984); Robinson v. Arkansas State
Highway & Transportation Commission, 698 F.2d 957 (8th Cir. 1983); Lerma v.
Bggg, 689 F.2d 589 (5th Cir. 1982).] I
DAMAGES *
There are two kinds of damages that you may consider. The first is N
compensatory damages: a sum of money that will fairly, adequately and
reasonably compensate a person for harm proximately caused by another's E
conduct. You may consider any dollar loss suffered, such as for medical
expenses or lost wages, as well as a reasonable amount to compensate for any
pain, suffering, or embarrassment which you find to have occurred. You may
also, if you find it warranted, award the plaintiff only "nomlnaI" damages, of One
Dollar ($1.00) or more. In fact, you may not award more than nominal damages
unless the plaintiff has demonstrated actual injury as I have defined it. The law
does not recognize an abstract or inherent monetary value for a constitutional
right. a
In awarding damages in this case you should not be concerned by the l
attorney's fees to which the plaintiffs attorneys may be entitled for handling this I
lawsuit. That is a matter for this Court to consider, and may be awarded over I
l
l
1
l

I l
Case 3:02-cv-02241-PCD Document 30 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 4 of 4
l
l
i

i and above damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff. The fees to which the
plaintiffs attorneys may be entitled for handling this lawsuit are not a proper I
element of damages and may not be a part of your deIiberations.[LoriIlard v. l
l
Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978); Faris v. Lynchburg Foundry, 769 F.2d 958 (4th Cir. i
1985); Blum v. Western Electric Co., 731 F.2d 1473 (10th Cir. 1984); Bodner v. E
Haeckel, Civil No. N-86-338 (JAC); Adams v. Doehler-Hawis, 144 Mich. App. I
764 (1985); Freeman v. Kelvinator, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 999 (E.D. Mich. 1979)].
THE PLAlNTlFF A
By - I
NORMAN A. PATTI
51 Elm Street, Suite 409 l
New Haven, CT 06510 ·
203.562.9931 A
203.776.9494 (fax)
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing was sent via facsimile this 14"‘ d y of Novemb 2 •
/ , ~
L .4li;a..,4§ i
’ NORMAN A. PA - (
l
l 1