Watson v. Lloyd Industries

$849,600 Verdict

Date of Verdict: Nov. 15, 2018.

Court and Case No.: U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa. No 2:17-cv-01049-MMB.

Judge: Michael M. Baylson.

Type of Action: Civil rights, employment.

Injuries: Anxiety, depression and emotional distress.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Samuel A. Dion, Dion & Goldberger.

Defense Counsel: Keith J. Cohen, Keith J. Cohen Law, Blue Bell.

Comment:

On Oct. 29, 2015, plaintiff Ronald Watson, 55, was terminated from his employment at Lloyd Industries Inc., in Montgomeryville. He started working for the company as a machine operator in December 2014. Watson, who is black, asserted that his termination was a product of racial discrimination.

Watson sued Lloyd Industries. He alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

According to Watson's counsel, there were only three black employees at the time that its new plant manager, Tom Prendergast, was hired in June 2015. On June 29, three weeks after Prendergast was hired, a white male named Steve Malloy was hired to work as an assembler. Malloy was the lowest worker in seniority at the plant at the time that he was hired.

Watson's counsel argued that, on Oct. 26, 2015, a black assembler was forced to quit after Prendergast cut his hours in half. Days later, Prendergast fired Watson and the other black worker. Watson's counsel asserted that Watson should have been retained by Lloyd Industries pursuant to the seniority policy in his union's collective bargaining agreement, and that Malloy, who was lowest in seniority, should have been laid off because Watson was able to perform Malloy's assembler job. Watson's counsel argued that the layoff was a pretext to mask the unlawful reason for his termination, which was based solely on his race.

Watson testified that Prendergast had an “attitude that you can feel,” and that the first time he ever spoke to Watson was on his last day of work. Watson and another former employee, who is black, testified that Prendergast would interact with the white employees, but not the black workers.

The defense maintained that Watson had been laid off for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, and that he failed to provide any evidence of discrimination. According to Lloyd Industries, the reason for Watson's termination was that there was a lull in production.

The defense also contended that Watson was an at-will employee who could be fired at any time, and that Watson was not retained because he could not perform the assembler job. The defense argued that any seniority under the collective bargaining agreement did not apply in this case.

The defense also noted that Watson had issues with performance during his tenure. The company's owner testified that he smelled alcohol on Watson's breath on a number of occasions.

Prendergast testified that he treated all of the workers, regardless of their race, equally.

Watson denied the allegation about having alcohol on his breath at work. He also disputed that he was unable to perform the assembler job. Further, Watson's counsel argued there was no documentation regarding any alleged performance issues, and Watson testified that he had never received any verbal or written warnings.

Watson alleged that his termination caused him to suffer emotional distress. During the two and a half years until he found another job, Watson allegedly experienced depression and anxiety over the inability to find work and the financial stress that came with it. His wife testified about Watson's emotional distress and how he became withdrawn. Watson sought to recover approximately $50,000 in back pay. He further sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

Watson's counsel argued that Lloyd Industries acted with malice or reckless indifference to Watson's federally protected rights, and that Watson was entitled to punitive damages.

The defense questioned Watson's alleged emotional distress, since there were no medical documents presented to support the claim. The defense asserted that Watson could have found another job sooner had he mitigated his damages. Lloyd Industries' counsel maintained that was not entitled to any punitive damages.

The jury found against Lloyd Industries. Watson was determined to receive $849,600. This is the breakdown: $750,000 for punitive exemplary damages, $50,000 for compensatory damages and $49,600 for back pay.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to calls for comment.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication.