Date: 06-25-1999

Case Style: James Robin Rogers v. AC Humko Corporation, et al.

Case Number: Unknown

Judge: John Phipps McCalla

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Plaintiff's Attorney: Hite McLean, Jr., Law Offices of Hite McLean, Jr., Memphis, Tennesse.

Defendant's Attorney: Stuart A. Wilson of Shuttleworth Wilkinson & Wilson, Memphis, Tennessee and Thomas H. Wilson and Christopher V. Bacon of Vinson & Elkins, Houston, Texas for AC Humko Corporation.

David A. Thornton, Armstrong Allen Prewitt Gentry, and Kimberly D. Brown of Johnston & Holmes, Memphis, Tennessee for Cigna Healthcare of Tennessee, Inc.

Description: Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA"), Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-21-101 to 1004, as well as the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 claims by former employee of AC Humko Corporation.

Plaintiff was actively employed by Humko until April 25, 1997. On that date, Plaintiff visited a doctor because of a serious health condition which involved his legs. Upon advice of his doctor, Plaintiff applied for short term disability leave. Plaintiff was placed on short term disability leave as of April 28, 1997. Plaintiff claimed that Defnedant terminated on May 6, 1997 in retaliation for his taking leave.

Plaintiff was on sick leave or short term disability until September 6, 1997, during which he continued to receive his full salary and benefits. From that date until October 26, 1997, Plaintiff received short term disability in the amount of two-thirds of his $77,000 base pay at the time of his termination. After October 26, 1997, Plaintiff began receiving long-term disability benefits under Defendant Humko's Long Term Disability Plan in the amount of sixty percent of his base pay. On December 5, 1997, the Social Security Administration determined that Plaintiff was entitled to monthly disability benefits as of October, 1997. As Defendant Humko's LTDP required an offset for any Social Security Benefits were reduced accordingly so that Plaintiff's overall benefits remained constant.

Plaintiff had successful surgery for his serious health condition in December, 1998, and recuperated from the surgery. While he continued to suffer from some pain, he no longer had a serious health condition.

Outcome: Jury verdict finding in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's ADEA claim and pendent state law claim. However, the jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant's termination of Plaintiff violated the FMLA as the termination was found to be in retaliation for Plaintiff taking for Plaintiff taking leave protected by the Act. The Court ordered Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff in his former position or an equivalent position and to pay front pay until Plaintiff turns 65 or until he is reinstated.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: For more information about this case, see: 56 F.Supp.2d 972 (W.D.Tenn. 1999)