Thursday, December 10, 2009
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT REJECTS TEAM INDUSTRIES PETITION !!!
State Supreme Court rejects TEAM’s petitionLu Ann Hurd-LofPark Rapids Enterprise - 10/23/2007
The Minnesota Supreme Court has denied a petition to overturn the Court of Appeals ruling in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte against TEAM Industries, Park Rapids.
The Court of Appeals upheld Judge Jay D. Mondry’s decision in the case July 24. TEAM filed a petition to the Supreme Court a month later.
According to Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, LaBonte’s attorney, the Supreme Court rarely grants a petition. TEAM’s appeals are now exhausted.
LaBonte is entitled to front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees first awarded following a court trial that started in June 2005.
Interest will be accruing against TEAM if it delays payment, according to Cooper.
Cooper, a former Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner, said Monday, “In outstate Minnesota there are not many verdicts of this magnitude the last several years. In Hennepin County, there are a lot more.”
Mondry had found in favor of LaBonte in February 2005. A month later TEAM filed a motion for a new trial and Mondry denied the motion.
TEAM’s subsequent appeal challenged all aspects of the case from the award of pay to whether or not LaBonte’s layoff was justified.
LaBonte was employed as a machine operator for approximately five years and was 60 at the time of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant April 7, 2003. Of 32 people terminated at that time, 21 were 40 years old or older. One expert, who testified during the trial, said the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age.
In addition, the court record states that while approximately 67 percent of the county’s available workforce is over age 40, only 44 percent of TEAM’s workers were in the over 40 group, even prior to the terminations.
TEAM claimed the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown. Further, TEAM claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not have been awarded front and back pay.
Mondry ruled that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered. “Finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities,” Mondry determined. He also ruled that TEAM provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
Affirming Mondry’s decision, the Appeals Court decision disagrees with TEAM’s assertion that LaBonte did not conduct a reasonable job search. “Although TEAM argues that LaBonte should have secured new employment within two months, the district court is in the best position to evaluate the local job opportunities for a person in LaBonte’s situation,” wrote Appeals Court Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski.
Age discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act can be proven by either “disparate treatment” or “disparate impact.”
In the appeal, TEAM Industries argued the district court wrongly found in favor of LaBonte by concluding both theories were proved.
Cooper said the terms are simpler to explain than they sound.
According to Cooper, disparate treatment means the employer intended to discriminate.
TEAM’s arguments relied on use of a “forced-ranking evaluation tool,” the employer used to determine who would be laid off in 2003.
Kalitowski states, “Here, statistical evidence indicates that the forced-ranking tool upon which appellant (TEAM) relied produced disparate results depending on the age of the person to whom it was applied. And the record indicates that appellant manipulated rankings of three employees on the list, resulting in lower rankings for the remaining employees.”
Disparate impact, Cooper explained, means an employer may not have intended to discriminate but that was a result. For example, Cooper said, if an employer said they would only hire people who are 6 feet tall, that would have an impact on women. The employer might say employees need to be 6 feet tall because they have to reach things taller than that.
In the LaBonte case, however, the Appeals Court judge states, “Evidence at trial indicated that the forced-ranking tool here is not directly related to an employee’s ability to perform the job effectively. According to performance reviews, LaBonte was performing the job effectively at the time his employment was terminated.
“Instead, there is evidence in the record that the tool was applied subjectively and inconsistently, returning different results based on the person performing the rating, and was susceptible to adjustments to correct for disfavored outcomes,” Kalitowski wrote.
“In this case, the tool they invented couldn’t justify what they did. They did discriminate and there was no excuse for it,” Cooper said. “Their justification had no validity.”
“The main thing this decision (from the Court of Appeals) says is it is unfortunate this employer has not chosen to correct the problem, but pretended the problem did not exist,” Cooper said.
“Employers can’t discard older workers,” Cooper said.
luannh@parkrapidsenterprise.com
The Minnesota Supreme Court has denied a petition to overturn the Court of Appeals ruling in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte against TEAM Industries, Park Rapids.
The Court of Appeals upheld Judge Jay D. Mondry’s decision in the case July 24. TEAM filed a petition to the Supreme Court a month later.
According to Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, LaBonte’s attorney, the Supreme Court rarely grants a petition. TEAM’s appeals are now exhausted.
LaBonte is entitled to front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees first awarded following a court trial that started in June 2005.
Interest will be accruing against TEAM if it delays payment, according to Cooper.
Cooper, a former Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner, said Monday, “In outstate Minnesota there are not many verdicts of this magnitude the last several years. In Hennepin County, there are a lot more.”
Mondry had found in favor of LaBonte in February 2005. A month later TEAM filed a motion for a new trial and Mondry denied the motion.
TEAM’s subsequent appeal challenged all aspects of the case from the award of pay to whether or not LaBonte’s layoff was justified.
LaBonte was employed as a machine operator for approximately five years and was 60 at the time of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant April 7, 2003. Of 32 people terminated at that time, 21 were 40 years old or older. One expert, who testified during the trial, said the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age.
In addition, the court record states that while approximately 67 percent of the county’s available workforce is over age 40, only 44 percent of TEAM’s workers were in the over 40 group, even prior to the terminations.
TEAM claimed the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown. Further, TEAM claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not have been awarded front and back pay.
Mondry ruled that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered. “Finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities,” Mondry determined. He also ruled that TEAM provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
Affirming Mondry’s decision, the Appeals Court decision disagrees with TEAM’s assertion that LaBonte did not conduct a reasonable job search. “Although TEAM argues that LaBonte should have secured new employment within two months, the district court is in the best position to evaluate the local job opportunities for a person in LaBonte’s situation,” wrote Appeals Court Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski.
Age discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act can be proven by either “disparate treatment” or “disparate impact.”
In the appeal, TEAM Industries argued the district court wrongly found in favor of LaBonte by concluding both theories were proved.
Cooper said the terms are simpler to explain than they sound.
According to Cooper, disparate treatment means the employer intended to discriminate.
TEAM’s arguments relied on use of a “forced-ranking evaluation tool,” the employer used to determine who would be laid off in 2003.
Kalitowski states, “Here, statistical evidence indicates that the forced-ranking tool upon which appellant (TEAM) relied produced disparate results depending on the age of the person to whom it was applied. And the record indicates that appellant manipulated rankings of three employees on the list, resulting in lower rankings for the remaining employees.”
Disparate impact, Cooper explained, means an employer may not have intended to discriminate but that was a result. For example, Cooper said, if an employer said they would only hire people who are 6 feet tall, that would have an impact on women. The employer might say employees need to be 6 feet tall because they have to reach things taller than that.
In the LaBonte case, however, the Appeals Court judge states, “Evidence at trial indicated that the forced-ranking tool here is not directly related to an employee’s ability to perform the job effectively. According to performance reviews, LaBonte was performing the job effectively at the time his employment was terminated.
“Instead, there is evidence in the record that the tool was applied subjectively and inconsistently, returning different results based on the person performing the rating, and was susceptible to adjustments to correct for disfavored outcomes,” Kalitowski wrote.
“In this case, the tool they invented couldn’t justify what they did. They did discriminate and there was no excuse for it,” Cooper said. “Their justification had no validity.”
“The main thing this decision (from the Court of Appeals) says is it is unfortunate this employer has not chosen to correct the problem, but pretended the problem did not exist,” Cooper said.
“Employers can’t discard older workers,” Cooper said.
luannh@parkrapidsenterprise.com
Friday, July 27, 2007
TEAM INDUSTRIES LOSES APPEAL !
Age discrimination decision is upheld
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld Judge Jay D. Mondry’s decision in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte against TEAM Industries, Park Rapids.
TEAM has 30 days to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to look at the case.
According to Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, LaBonte’s attorney, the Supreme Court only looks at one out of 10 cases requested, so the odds are heavily against the court taking the case even if the request is made.
If that is the case, LaBonte will be entitled to front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees first awarded following a court trial that started in June 2005.
Mondry found in favor of LaBonte in February 2005. A month later TEAM filed a motion for a new trial and Mondry denied the motion.
TEAM’s subsequent appeal challenged all aspects of the case from the award of pay to whether or not LaBonte’s layoff was justified.
LaBonte was employed as a machine operator for approximately five years and was 60 at the time of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant April 7, 2003. Of 32 people terminated at that time, 21 were 40 years old or older. One expert, who testified during the trial, said the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age.
In addition, the court record states that while approximately 67 percent of the county’s available workforce is over age 40, only 44 percent of TEAM’s workers were in the over 40 group, even prior to the terminations.
TEAM claimed the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown. Further, TEAM claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not have been awarded front and back pay.
Mondry ruled that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered. “Finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities,” Mondry determined. He also ruled that TEAM provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
Affirming Mondry’s decision, the Appeals Court decision disagrees with TEAM’s assertion that LaBonte did not conduct a reasonable job search. “Although TEAM argues that LaBonte should have secured new employment within two months, the district court is in the best position to evaluate the local job opportunities for a person in LaBonte’s situation,” wrote Appeals Court Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski.
Age discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act can be proven by either “disparate treatment” or “disparate impact.”
In the appeal, TEAM Industries argued the district court wrongly found in favor of LaBonte by concluding both theories were proved.
Cooper said the terms are simpler to explain than they sound.
According to Cooper, disparate treatment means the employer intended to discriminate.
TEAM’s arguments relied on use of a “forced-ranking evaluation tool,” the employer used to determine who would be laid off in 2003.
Kalitowski states, “Here, statistical evidence indicates that the forced-ranking tool upon which appellant (TEAM) relied produced disparate results depending on the age of the person to whom it was applied. And the record indicates that appellant manipulated rankings of three employees on the list, resulting in lower rankings for the remaining employees.”
Disparate impact, Cooper explained, means an employer may not have intended to discriminate but that was a result. For example, Cooper said, if an employer said they would only hire people who are 6 feet tall, that would have an impact on women. The employer might say employees need to be 6 feet tall because they have to reach things taller than that.
In the LaBonte case, however, the Appeals Court judge states, “Evidence at trial indicated that the forced-ranking tool here is not directly related to an employee’s ability to perform the job effectively. According to performance reviews, LaBonte was performing the job effectively at the time his employment was terminated.
“Instead, there is evidence in the record that the tool was applied subjectively and inconsistently, returning different results based on the person performing the rating, and was susceptible to adjustments to correct for disfavored outcomes,” Kalitowski wrote.
“In this case, the tool they invented couldn’t justify what they did. They did discriminate and there was no excuse for it,” Cooper said. “Their justification had no validity.”
Cooper, a former Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner, said, “The main thing this decision says is it is unfortunate this employer has not chosen to correct the problem, but pretended the problem did not exist.
“Employers can’t discard older workers,” Cooper said.
luannh@parkrapidsenterprise.com
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld Judge Jay D. Mondry’s decision in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte against TEAM Industries, Park Rapids.
TEAM has 30 days to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to look at the case.
According to Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, LaBonte’s attorney, the Supreme Court only looks at one out of 10 cases requested, so the odds are heavily against the court taking the case even if the request is made.
If that is the case, LaBonte will be entitled to front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees first awarded following a court trial that started in June 2005.
Mondry found in favor of LaBonte in February 2005. A month later TEAM filed a motion for a new trial and Mondry denied the motion.
TEAM’s subsequent appeal challenged all aspects of the case from the award of pay to whether or not LaBonte’s layoff was justified.
LaBonte was employed as a machine operator for approximately five years and was 60 at the time of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant April 7, 2003. Of 32 people terminated at that time, 21 were 40 years old or older. One expert, who testified during the trial, said the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age.
In addition, the court record states that while approximately 67 percent of the county’s available workforce is over age 40, only 44 percent of TEAM’s workers were in the over 40 group, even prior to the terminations.
TEAM claimed the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown. Further, TEAM claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not have been awarded front and back pay.
Mondry ruled that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered. “Finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities,” Mondry determined. He also ruled that TEAM provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
Affirming Mondry’s decision, the Appeals Court decision disagrees with TEAM’s assertion that LaBonte did not conduct a reasonable job search. “Although TEAM argues that LaBonte should have secured new employment within two months, the district court is in the best position to evaluate the local job opportunities for a person in LaBonte’s situation,” wrote Appeals Court Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski.
Age discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act can be proven by either “disparate treatment” or “disparate impact.”
In the appeal, TEAM Industries argued the district court wrongly found in favor of LaBonte by concluding both theories were proved.
Cooper said the terms are simpler to explain than they sound.
According to Cooper, disparate treatment means the employer intended to discriminate.
TEAM’s arguments relied on use of a “forced-ranking evaluation tool,” the employer used to determine who would be laid off in 2003.
Kalitowski states, “Here, statistical evidence indicates that the forced-ranking tool upon which appellant (TEAM) relied produced disparate results depending on the age of the person to whom it was applied. And the record indicates that appellant manipulated rankings of three employees on the list, resulting in lower rankings for the remaining employees.”
Disparate impact, Cooper explained, means an employer may not have intended to discriminate but that was a result. For example, Cooper said, if an employer said they would only hire people who are 6 feet tall, that would have an impact on women. The employer might say employees need to be 6 feet tall because they have to reach things taller than that.
In the LaBonte case, however, the Appeals Court judge states, “Evidence at trial indicated that the forced-ranking tool here is not directly related to an employee’s ability to perform the job effectively. According to performance reviews, LaBonte was performing the job effectively at the time his employment was terminated.
“Instead, there is evidence in the record that the tool was applied subjectively and inconsistently, returning different results based on the person performing the rating, and was susceptible to adjustments to correct for disfavored outcomes,” Kalitowski wrote.
“In this case, the tool they invented couldn’t justify what they did. They did discriminate and there was no excuse for it,” Cooper said. “Their justification had no validity.”
Cooper, a former Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner, said, “The main thing this decision says is it is unfortunate this employer has not chosen to correct the problem, but pretended the problem did not exist.
“Employers can’t discard older workers,” Cooper said.
luannh@parkrapidsenterprise.com
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
TEAM APPEALS COURT'S DECISION
TEAM appeals court's decision
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof
Park Rapids Enterprise - 09/05/2006
TEAM Industries is appealing Judge Jay D. Mondry’s decisions in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte.
In February, Mondry found in favor of LaBonte, awarding him front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees.
TEAM filed a motion for a new trial or amended findings March 8.
Mondry found for LaBonte again. In June, the judge issued an order denying the motion for a new trial and awarding LaBonte’s attorney fees and costs of $237,494.
The appeal challenges all aspects of the case from the award of pay to whether or not LaBonte’s layoff was justified.
LaBonte had been employed as a machine operator for approximately five years and was 60 at the time of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant April 7, 2003. Of 32 people terminated at that time, 21 were 40 years old or older. One expert, who testified during the trial, said the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age.
In addition, the court record states that while approximately 67 percent of the county’s available workforce is over age 40, only 44 percent of TEAM’s workers were in the over 40 group, even prior to the terminations.
TEAM claims the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown. Further, TEAM claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not have been awarded front and back pay.
Mondry ruled that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered. “Finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities,” Mondry determined. He also ruled that TEAM provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
Last week, LaBonte’s attorney, Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, said TEAM has raised no new arguments in the appeal.
“The evidence (for LaBonte) is overwhelming,” and the statistics bear that out, Cooper said. “They definitely don’t like or accept the outcome.”
Although TEAM has the right to appeal, Cooper said the situation seems to be they don’t understand the problem. “It’s not unusual for companies to take it (an adverse ruling) as a learning opportunity and go forward. In this case, TEAM refuses to accept the facts.
“It’s unfortunate that we have to go through the process,” Cooper added.
It could be six to eight months before the case is decided, Cooper said.
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof
Park Rapids Enterprise - 09/05/2006
TEAM Industries is appealing Judge Jay D. Mondry’s decisions in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte.
In February, Mondry found in favor of LaBonte, awarding him front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees.
TEAM filed a motion for a new trial or amended findings March 8.
Mondry found for LaBonte again. In June, the judge issued an order denying the motion for a new trial and awarding LaBonte’s attorney fees and costs of $237,494.
The appeal challenges all aspects of the case from the award of pay to whether or not LaBonte’s layoff was justified.
LaBonte had been employed as a machine operator for approximately five years and was 60 at the time of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant April 7, 2003. Of 32 people terminated at that time, 21 were 40 years old or older. One expert, who testified during the trial, said the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age.
In addition, the court record states that while approximately 67 percent of the county’s available workforce is over age 40, only 44 percent of TEAM’s workers were in the over 40 group, even prior to the terminations.
TEAM claims the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown. Further, TEAM claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not have been awarded front and back pay.
Mondry ruled that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered. “Finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities,” Mondry determined. He also ruled that TEAM provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
Last week, LaBonte’s attorney, Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, said TEAM has raised no new arguments in the appeal.
“The evidence (for LaBonte) is overwhelming,” and the statistics bear that out, Cooper said. “They definitely don’t like or accept the outcome.”
Although TEAM has the right to appeal, Cooper said the situation seems to be they don’t understand the problem. “It’s not unusual for companies to take it (an adverse ruling) as a learning opportunity and go forward. In this case, TEAM refuses to accept the facts.
“It’s unfortunate that we have to go through the process,” Cooper added.
It could be six to eight months before the case is decided, Cooper said.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
TEAMWORKS GRANT INVITES LATINOS
Teamworks grant invites Latinos
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof
Park Rapids Enterprise - 07/25/2006
Teamworks, Inc., Park Rapids has been awarded two Minnesota Job Skills Partnership (MJSP) Program grants of 22 grants given statewide to support thousands of incumbent and lower-income workers in receiving customized workplace training.
The MJSP Board awarded $3.8 million to such programs.
“These grants represent important economic development initiatives for the State of Minnesota,” said acting commissioner and MJSP Board chair Ward Einess.
“In particular, the ongoing development of English-language skills among incumbent and lower-income workers lessens the barrier to their success and is critical to continued growth in our demand industries and services.”
One of the grants to Teamworks and TEAM Industries, Detroit Lakes and Audubon, will fund new machinist curriculum to support the growth of a Latino machinist labor force.
“This will be the first Spanish machinist program in the state,” said Kathy Carney, Teamworks CEO.
“We’re finding not enough people to fill these skilled jobs,” Carney said. Citing a low unemployment rate of 3 percent, she said, “We figure we have to look at innovative ways to recruit new employees.
“We believe the Latino population has been underutilized and will often take jobs others won’t. We also think Latinos have the same aspirations and goals for career mobility and pay that everyone else has.”
Teamworks has begun placing ads seeking documented workers with some English skills and an interest in manufacturing jobs in some newspapers written for Spanish-speaking populations. They also are recruiting in Minnesota communities with a Latino population, including Willmar, Pelican Rapids, St. Cloud and Owatonna.
In addition, Carney and Rosalie Hjermstad, Park Rapids, a consultant with Teamworks and the Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corp., will be going to colleges in Brownsville, TX to seek candidates for further training.
Initially, the grant would fund 65 trainees in on-the-job training for foundry; computer numerical controlled lathe and CNC mill operations; English for manufacturing; and technical training.
The second grant awarded to Teamworks is for $173,250 to recruit, assess and train 75 eligible low-income workers to become CNC machine operators. These trainees will be recruited from Red Lake, White Earth and Leech Lake reservations and the surrounding area, Carney said.
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof
Park Rapids Enterprise - 07/25/2006
Teamworks, Inc., Park Rapids has been awarded two Minnesota Job Skills Partnership (MJSP) Program grants of 22 grants given statewide to support thousands of incumbent and lower-income workers in receiving customized workplace training.
The MJSP Board awarded $3.8 million to such programs.
“These grants represent important economic development initiatives for the State of Minnesota,” said acting commissioner and MJSP Board chair Ward Einess.
“In particular, the ongoing development of English-language skills among incumbent and lower-income workers lessens the barrier to their success and is critical to continued growth in our demand industries and services.”
One of the grants to Teamworks and TEAM Industries, Detroit Lakes and Audubon, will fund new machinist curriculum to support the growth of a Latino machinist labor force.
“This will be the first Spanish machinist program in the state,” said Kathy Carney, Teamworks CEO.
“We’re finding not enough people to fill these skilled jobs,” Carney said. Citing a low unemployment rate of 3 percent, she said, “We figure we have to look at innovative ways to recruit new employees.
“We believe the Latino population has been underutilized and will often take jobs others won’t. We also think Latinos have the same aspirations and goals for career mobility and pay that everyone else has.”
Teamworks has begun placing ads seeking documented workers with some English skills and an interest in manufacturing jobs in some newspapers written for Spanish-speaking populations. They also are recruiting in Minnesota communities with a Latino population, including Willmar, Pelican Rapids, St. Cloud and Owatonna.
In addition, Carney and Rosalie Hjermstad, Park Rapids, a consultant with Teamworks and the Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corp., will be going to colleges in Brownsville, TX to seek candidates for further training.
Initially, the grant would fund 65 trainees in on-the-job training for foundry; computer numerical controlled lathe and CNC mill operations; English for manufacturing; and technical training.
The second grant awarded to Teamworks is for $173,250 to recruit, assess and train 75 eligible low-income workers to become CNC machine operators. These trainees will be recruited from Red Lake, White Earth and Leech Lake reservations and the surrounding area, Carney said.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
JUDGE RULES FOR LABONTE-AGAIN
Judge rules for LaBonte - again
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof Park Rapids Enterprise
Published Friday, July 07, 2006
Judge Jay D. Mondry recently denied motions by TEAM Industries in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte and awarded LaBonte’s attorney fees and costs.
Mondry heard the original case last summer. LaBonte claimed he was wrongfully fired during a round of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant in early 2003. He and others over the age of 50 were among 32 terminated employees.
TEAM insisted the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown.
In February, Mondry found for LaBonte and ordered TEAM to pay LaBonte front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees.
Shortly after the judge’s order was issued, TEAM’s attorney Alec Beck of Minneapolis moved for either a new trial or a change in the court’s findings. He also challenged the court’s decision to award LaBonte’s attorney’s fees and costs.
Mondry’s latest order was filed June 28.
TEAM had claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not be awarded front and back pay.
In arriving at his decision, the judge upheld his earlier determination that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered, that “finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities” and Team provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
The order also addressed TEAM’s arguments that LaBonte’s attorney, Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, had not met all the requirements to prove a case of age discrimination.
For example, TEAM argued Cooper failed to prove he was qualified for the job in question and claimed they offered LaBonte an opportunity to be rehired and he declined.
Mondry wrote, “The defendants (TEAM) can not have it both ways. Clearly the evidence demonstrates the plaintiff (LaBonte) was in fact a qualified person for the position.”
Further, the judge found LaBonte “has met his burden of proof and established that age discrimination was a causative factor in the decision to terminate him.”
Another point of contention had been TEAM’s use of a “forced ranking” system to measure each employee’s performance. This system was used to determine which employees were laid off.
The forced ranking system negatively affected older workers but was used even though other alternatives were available to the employer, Mondry’s order states.
The order also awards attorney’s fees and costs of $237,494.
In March, Beck said TEAM would file an appeal regardless of whether motions before the court in Hubbard County were granted or not.
This week, the LaBontes said they expect TEAM will appeal.
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof Park Rapids Enterprise
Published Friday, July 07, 2006
Judge Jay D. Mondry recently denied motions by TEAM Industries in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte and awarded LaBonte’s attorney fees and costs.
Mondry heard the original case last summer. LaBonte claimed he was wrongfully fired during a round of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant in early 2003. He and others over the age of 50 were among 32 terminated employees.
TEAM insisted the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown.
In February, Mondry found for LaBonte and ordered TEAM to pay LaBonte front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees.
Shortly after the judge’s order was issued, TEAM’s attorney Alec Beck of Minneapolis moved for either a new trial or a change in the court’s findings. He also challenged the court’s decision to award LaBonte’s attorney’s fees and costs.
Mondry’s latest order was filed June 28.
TEAM had claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not be awarded front and back pay.
In arriving at his decision, the judge upheld his earlier determination that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered, that “finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities” and Team provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.
The order also addressed TEAM’s arguments that LaBonte’s attorney, Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, had not met all the requirements to prove a case of age discrimination.
For example, TEAM argued Cooper failed to prove he was qualified for the job in question and claimed they offered LaBonte an opportunity to be rehired and he declined.
Mondry wrote, “The defendants (TEAM) can not have it both ways. Clearly the evidence demonstrates the plaintiff (LaBonte) was in fact a qualified person for the position.”
Further, the judge found LaBonte “has met his burden of proof and established that age discrimination was a causative factor in the decision to terminate him.”
Another point of contention had been TEAM’s use of a “forced ranking” system to measure each employee’s performance. This system was used to determine which employees were laid off.
The forced ranking system negatively affected older workers but was used even though other alternatives were available to the employer, Mondry’s order states.
The order also awards attorney’s fees and costs of $237,494.
In March, Beck said TEAM would file an appeal regardless of whether motions before the court in Hubbard County were granted or not.
This week, the LaBontes said they expect TEAM will appeal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)