Acevedo v. Flightsafety Int'l, Inc.
156 A.3d 183
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2016Background
- Rex Fornaro, a flight instructor, sued FlightSafety International under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging disability discrimination and retaliatory discharge for seeking accommodation.
- A jury found FlightSafety liable for firing Fornaro because of his disability and in retaliation; it awarded roughly $83,000 in back pay and no compensatory damages for emotional distress.
- The trial judge reduced back pay by ~50% of the unemployment benefits Fornaro received; counsel-fee motions awarded plaintiff's trial counsel about $275,000 and prior counsel about $104,500.
- FlightSafety appealed several rulings and argued that the full amount of unemployment benefits should offset back pay; Fornaro argued no offset should apply.
- The appellate court reviewed whether unemployment compensation must be deducted from LAD back pay awards and whether other trial-court rulings were erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unemployment benefits must be deducted from LAD back pay | Fornaro: none should be deducted; unemployment is a collateral source | FlightSafety: full deduction, or at least partial; alternatively, policy-based deduction to avoid double recovery | Unemployment benefits may not be deducted from LAD back pay; trial reduction by half reversed and amended judgment ordered |
| Whether punitive damages claim should have survived to verdict | Fornaro: punitive damages justified by employer misconduct | FlightSafety: insufficient evidence for punitive damages | Appellate court affirmed dismissal of punitive damages at close of plaintiff's case (no reversible error) |
| Whether plaintiff's separate failure-to-accommodate claim and aiding-and-abetting claims against individuals should proceed | Fornaro: claims were viable | FlightSafety: claims lacked merit | Court affirmed dismissal of the separate accommodation claim and the individual aiding-and-abetting claims (no reversible error) |
| Recusal and fee-award issues (post-trial judge & second judge on fees) | Fornaro: trial judge could hear post-trial matters; fee awards appropriate | FlightSafety: trial judge should have recused from fee motions; fee awards excessive | Court declined to disturb the trial judge except it remanded only to adjust back pay; it affirmed fee awards and recusal rulings as made (no reversible error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiss v. Jacob, 138 N.J. 278 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (discussing purpose of N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 and collateral-source rule)
- Patusco v. Prince Macaroni, 50 N.J. 365 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (describing common-law collateral-source rule)
- Sporn v. Celebrity, Inc., 129 N.J. Super. 449 (Law Div. 1974) (refusing to reduce employer liability by plaintiff's unemployment benefits)
- N.J. Indus. Props. v. Y.C. & V.L., 100 N.J. 432 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (endorsing the Sporn rationale in related context)
- NLRB v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361 (U.S. Supreme Court) (unemployment compensation not deductible from NLRA back pay)
- Craig v. Y & Y Snacks, 721 F.2d 77 (3d Cir.) (Title VII back pay not offset by unemployment benefits)
- Gelof v. Papineau, 829 F.2d 452 (3d Cir.) (applying Craig rule to ADEA back pay)
- Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (standard of de novo review for legal interpretations)