107 A.3d 296
R.I.2014Background
- Deborah Thornley, a nursing student at CCRI, alleged disability discrimination under RICRA after taking Percocet for chronic headaches during 2003-2004.
- Thornley left the nursing program in spring 2004; she later filed suit in 2004 claiming disability-based discharge and related claims.
- Evidence showed Thornley had long-standing headaches; MRI and neurological history were discussed; Percocet use potentially affected functioning.
- CCRI and officials argued Thornley was not dismissed for disability but potentially for clinical performance while on medication.
- A trial occurred in 2012; the jury found Thornley failed to prove she was disabled; Thornley amended her complaint to add constructive discharge under RICRA.
- Dr. L’Europa, a neurologist, provided a report in 2008 linking headaches to analgesic rebound from Percocet; the report was admitted at trial over objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Dr. L’Europa's report | L’Europa report irrelevant to 2003-04 disability | Report relevant to disability and cause of headaches | No abuse of discretion; report relevant and admissible |
| Juror 78 excusal mid-trial | No basis to dismiss juror; mid-trial peremptory | Excusal for cause due to potential bias | Trial court properly exercised discretion; excusal upheld |
| Court's post-evidence dismissal of some claims | Trial court erred by telling jury some claims were dismissed as a matter of law | No error; proper Rule 50/59 procedures followed | No reversible error; affirm and proceed with judgment |
| Constructive discharge claim under RICRA | Constructive discharge shown by disability and denial of program | No proof Thornley was disabled or properly constructively discharged | Judgment affirmed; Thornley failed to prove disability or constructively discharged |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2004) (evidentiary relevance and trial court discretion)
- State v. Calenda, 787 A.2d 1199 (R.I. 2002) (relevance standard; abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Ford, 56 A.3d 463 (R.I. 2012) (raise-or-waive rule; preservation requirements)
- State v. Valcourt, 792 A.2d 732 (R.I. 2002) (juror impartiality and in-camera inquiry)
- Mead v. Papa Razzi, 899 A.2d 437 (R.I. 2006) (trial-error preservation; discretionary trial rulings)