Date: 11-09-1999

Case Style: Bernard Carpenter v. Central Vermont Medical Center

Case Number: 98-387

Judge: Unknown

Court: Superior Court, Washington County, Vermont

Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description: Age Discrimination and Retalitation - Fair Employment and Practices Act - Plaintiff was hired by Central Vermont Hospital in 1984. He worked as a custodian for ten years, eventually moving to the Woodridge Nursing Home, operated by defendant Central Vermont Medical Center (CVMC). Plaintiff received favorable performance evaluations for the majority of his time with CVMC. In 1994, he was fifty-eight years old. In February 1994, the nursing home created a new position for a lead housekeeper, involving many of plaintiff's duties, as well as some new responsibilities. Two individuals applied for the position, plaintiff and Mike Tanner, a twenty-three-year-old employee who had been a housekeeper for three months. Plaintiff and Tanner were both interviewed, and Tanner was selected for the job.

In spring 1995, the nursing home decided to restructure the duties of some of its staff, including plaintiff. Carpenter was asked to add to his duties of dust mopping, vacuuming, stripping, and waxing floors, the tasks of wet mopping, dusting lights and furniture, cleaning patient rooms, and changing dirty linens. As a result of throat cancer and radiation treatments for it, plaintiff experienced heightened sensitivity to some cleaning products and to human waste. Upon being told of the reorganization plan, plaintiff refused to do the new duties. He took a month's vacation and returned, but was still unwilling to perform tasks such as cleaning patient rooms. His job was terminated by CVMC at that time.

Plaintiff filed suit for age discrimination and retaliation under Vermont's Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA). The complaint did not contain a demand for a jury trial, nor was one filed within the time limits of V.R.C.P. 38. Plaintiff tried repeatedly to undo this mistake by adding new legal theories to his case. On February 27, 1997, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add a federal age discrimination claim and obtain a jury trial. The trial court denied these motions. Plaintiff next moved to amend his complaint to add a claim of disability discrimination under FEPA and to demand a jury trial. The court denied both motions. Plaintiff moved for the third time for a jury trial on March 8, 1998, and this motion, too, was denied.

Outcome: Defendant's verdict.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Supreme Court of Vermont. See: ___ Vt. ___ (11-9-1999)___ A.2d ___. Note: The above date reflects the appellate court decision date, not the original trial date. Reported by kkm.