IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …Case 2:17-cv-02568-SHL-tmp Document 188 Filed...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION VIVIAN JANE UMFRESS,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:17-cv-2568 – SHL-tmp vs. CITY OF MEMPHIS,

Defendant.

PRE-TRIAL ORDER ______________________________________________________________________

The following shall constitute the Pre-Trial Order for this matter:

1. Parties: The Plaintiff in this action is Vivian Jane Umfress (“Ms. Umfress” or

“Plaintiff”), who is bringing this action for claims of retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) of

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendant

in this action is the City of Memphis (“City” or “Defendant”).

2. Counsel for the Parties:

Robert L. J. Spence, Jr. Andrew M. Horvath Jerrick D. Murrell THE SPENCE LAW FIRM, PLLC 80 Monroe Ave., Garden Suite One Memphis, TN 38103 Counsel for the Plaintiff Florence M. Johnson JOHNSON & JOHNSON, PLLC 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 1002 Memphis, Tennessee 38104

Case 2:17-cv-02568-SHL-tmp Document 188 Filed 07/08/19 of 22 PageID 2649

2

Roane Waring CITY OF MEMPHIS Deputy City Attorney 170 N. Main Street, 5th Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Zayid Saleem Assistant City Attorney City of Memphis 125 N. Main St., Rm. 336 Memphis, TN 38103 Counsel for the Defendant Denise Nelson, Finance Coordinator, City Representative

3. Jurisdiction: There are no jurisdictional issues in this case. The parties stipulate

that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

action pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This is an

action authorized by and instituted pursuant to § 623(d) of the ADEA, and 42 U.S.C. §

1981a.

4. Trial Date: A trial has been set in this matter for Monday, July 8, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.

in Courtroom #1, 11th floor of the Federal Building in Memphis, Tennessee.

5. Motions Pending: The parties have no pending motions to be ruled on prior to

trial.

6. Joint Summary of the Case:

Plaintiff Vivian Jane Umfress brought this case against her former employer,

Defendant, City of Memphis, asserting two (2) claims: (1) that she was retaliated against

by the City of Memphis; and (2) that the City of Memphis violated her civil rights.

Prior to her termination, Ms. Umfress was employed as a Financial Management

Coordinator for the City of Memphis in the Finance Division. She worked for the City for


3

a total of approximately thirty-three (33) years. In August 2015, Ms. Umfress filed a claim

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC against the City for age

discrimination. In September 2015, Ms. Umfress filed a claim for retaliation. In February

2016, the City terminated Ms. Umfress, and included her name and photograph in a

Security Escort List that was published in February 2017.

Ms. Umfress contends that her termination and her inclusion on the security list

were actions taken in response to her filing complaints with the EEOC and thus constitute

retaliatory action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA. She also

asserts that the City published the list, and that that publication caused her reputational

harm, making it difficult for her to find employment after she was terminated by the City.

She argues that this reputational harm constitutes a deprivation of a liberty interest in

violation of § 1983. In addition to her claims under the ADEA and § 1983, Ms. Umfress

seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the City from maintaining a security list that

includes her name and likeness.

The City denies Ms. Umfress’ claims in their entirety.

7. Contentions:

Plaintiff’s Contentions: Plaintiff contends that Defendant retaliated against

Plaintiff for engaging in the legally protected activities of filing complaints with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against Defendant. Plaintiff submits the

following specific contentions for trial:

1. Plaintiff contends that, at all relevant times, she was a civil service employee

of Defendant’s Finance Division;


4

2. Plaintiff contends that, at all relevant times, she was the most senior

employee in the Finance Division;

3. Plaintiff contends that she engaged in a legally protected activity when she

filed EEOC Charge No. 490-2015-02138 on August 13, 2015;

4. Plaintiff contends that she engaged in another legally protected activity

when she filed EEOC Charge No. 490-2015-02369 on September 15, 2015;

5. Plaintiff contends that Defendant took adverse employment action when it

planned a “restructuring” or “reorganization” of the Finance Division that

would eliminate Plaintiff’s job;

6. Plaintiff contends that her last official day of employment was February 19,

2016;

7. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s denial of her rights and benefits under

the Defendant’s Reduction in Force policy (“RIF policy”), including, but not

limited to, Plaintiff’s ability to exercise all rights, including “bumping rights”

over less senior employees, upon being involuntarily and permanently

laying off the Plaintiff from the Finance Division, was an adverse

employment action;

8. Plaintiff contends Defendant took further adverse employment action when

it included Plaintiff’s name and likeness in the Security List at City Hall,

thereby branding her a security threat to the City of Memphis when it

published the Security List;1

1 Defendant objects to the phrase “further adverse employment action” in this contention; Defendant contends Plaintiff’s employment had ended at the time at issue in this contention.


5

9. Plaintiff contends that, at all relevant times, Defendant had a policy, practice

and/or custom of creating and maintaining a Security List at City Hall, which

included the identities of individuals who were, and were not, security

threats;

10. Plaintiff contends that, at all relevant times, Defendant had a policy, practice

and/or custom of allowing non-security and non-police employees of the

City of Memphis, including Division directors, to unilaterally include former

employees in the Security Book without review and without police

investigation, assessment or confirmation of the propriety of including each

former City of Memphis employee by the Memphis Police Department;

11. Plaintiff contends that Defendant included her name and likeness in the

Security List simultaneous with her termination pursuant to Defendant’s

policies, practices or customs;

12. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s inclusion of her name and likeness in the

Security List injured her reputation, good name, honor or integrity in

connection with her termination from the Finance Division;

13. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s inclusion of her name and likeness in the

Security List damaged her standing and associations in her community or

imposed a stigma on her that would foreclose her freedom to take

advantage of other employment opportunities;

14. Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to damages for Defendant’s conduct

under 42. U.S.C. § 1983; and


6

15. Plaintiff contends she is entitled to a permanent injunction against

Defendant, requiring Defendant to remove her name and likeness from the

Security List and publicly acknowledge that she should not have been

included in the Security List.

Defendant’s Contentions:

1. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant began on or about August 25, 1982.

2. At all relevant times to the matters complained about herein, Plaintiff was

employed as a Financial Management Coordinator with the City’s Division

of Finance.

3. Plaintiff was supervised by Sharon Cobbige on a day to day basis. Cobbige

reported to Deputy Comptroller, Shirley Ford and Chief Financial Officer

Brian Collins and only Ford remains currently employed with the City of

Memphis.

4. Collins left the employ of the City of Memphis in March of 2018.

5. Shirley Ford is currently the Chief Financial Officer for the City of Memphis.

6. Defendant contends that during this time, the Finance Department

conducted a work-study of the entire Finance Department and determined

that there were not enough accountants in senior positions and it was at

that time the City of Memphis determine that positions within Finance

needed to be eliminated.

7. Defendant contends that two positions were eliminated; one was the

Plaintiff’s and one belonged to another employee, Edwina Howard.


7

8. Defendant contends that thereafter, on February 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was

called into a meeting with Shirley Ford and Jill Madajczyk, Director of

Human Resources and was told that her position was being abolished on

February 8, 2016.

9. Defendant contends that after the conclusion of the meeting, Ford escorted

the Plaintiff to her desk to gather her belongings.

10. Defendant contends that employees in human resource called for

assistance from Operations at City Hall and Plaintiff was escorted out of

City Hall by security and Deputy Comptroller Shirley Ford to her vehicle in

the City Hall parking garage.

11. Defendant contends Plaintiff was relieved of her parking privileges and City

Hall identification badge.

12. Defendant contends that as a result of her job elimination, the Plaintiff’s

name was placed in the Security binder kept at the Security desk containing

her name and her photograph from her badge listing her as a former

employee based on the City of Memphis’ Dignitary Protection Policy.

13. The Security Escort List was kept and maintained by the Security officers in

City Hall and was included in a binder which also contained the

Authorization of Agency (“AOA”) used to keep protestors off the private

property owned by the Mayor.

14. The Plaintiff went to the Equal Opportunity Commission on or about August

13, 2015 and alleged that Shirley Ford, Deputy Comptroller was

discriminating against her based on her age (over 40) and on or about


8

September 15, 2015, she filed a charge with the EEOC alleging retaliation

for filing her age discrimination charge.

15. Defendant contends that the Plaintiff, at no time ever availed herself of any

internal City process to complain of discrimination if she felt herself

discriminated against based on age.

16. Defendant contends that the Plaintiff applied for and received

unemployment after her job abolishment from during the month of March

2017.

17. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not actively been looking for work

since March of 2017 and has been operating an internet business selling

jewelry and housewares since 2014.

18. Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot prove that she was denied

employment in any job that she applied for after her job abolishment with

the City of Memphis.

8. Joint Stipulations:

1. Plaintiff was hired originally by the City of Memphis on August 25, 1982.

2. On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of age discrimination against

Defendant (Charge No. 490-2015-02138).

3. On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of retaliation against

Defendant (Charge No. 490-2015-02369).

4. On April 7, 2016, Plaintiff amended her charge of retaliation against

Defendant to include her termination (Charge No. 490-2015-02369).


9

9. Contested Issues of Fact: The contested issues of fact in this case center around

the events surrounding Plaintiff’s end of employment with the Defendant’s Finance

Division in February 2016. The parties submit that the following enumerated matters

represent the contested factual matters for trial:

Plaintiff’s Contested Issues of Fact:

1. Whether Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s engagement in the protected conduct

of filing claims with the EEOC;

2. Whether Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s protected conduct;

3. Whether Defendant’s refusal to provide Plaintiff RIF benefits after the

reorganization of the Finance Division was causally related to Plaintiff’s

protected conduct;

4. Whether the job duties of the Senior Accountant positions created through

the reorganization are the same or substantially the same job duties as

those performed by Plaintiff as Financial Management Coordinator prior to

her termination;

5. Whether Defendant’s inclusion of Plaintiff’s name and likeness on the

Security List was causally related to Plaintiff’s protected conduct;

6. Whether Defendant had a policy, practice or custom of creating and

maintaining a Security List at City Hall, containing the names and

photographs of individuals requiring an escort at City Hall;

7. Whether Defendant had a policy, practice or custom of permitting non-police

and non-security City employees, including Division directors, to include

former employees’ names and photographs in the Security Book;


10

8. Whether Defendant’s inclusion of Plaintiff’s name and photograph in the

Security Book occurred pursuant to these policies, practices or customs of

the City of Memphis;

9. Whether the inclusion of Plaintiff’s name and photograph in the Security

Book stigmatized Plaintiff’s name and reputation, harmed Plaintiff by

depriving her of a constitutionally protected liberty interest in other potential

employment and caused her injury; and

10. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, and if so, in what

amount.

Defendant’s Contested Issues of Fact:

1. Whether the Plaintiff has any proof that her job abolishment was not

conducted according to a legitimate nondiscriminatory business decision on

the part of the Defendant?

2. Whether the Defendant failed to offer the Plaintiff any position for which she

would have been qualified under its RIF policy in effect at the time of her

job abolishment?

3. Whether the Plaintiff was subjected to any custom, policy or practice that

caused harm in placing her name and likeness on the Security List after her

job abolishment?

4. Whether the Plaintiff has any evidence that anyone retaliated against her

based on any alleged protected activity?

5. Whether the Plaintiff has established that she suffered any calculable

damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)?


11

10. Contested Issues of Law: The contested issues of law in this case turn on the

facts surrounding the end of Plaintiff’s employment with the City of Memphis

Finance Division.

Plaintiff’s Issues of Law:

Retaliation

1. Whether, after Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct, Defendant’s refusal

to provide Plaintiff RIF rights after the “reorganization” was in retaliation for

Plaintiff’s engagement in the protected conduct;

2. Whether Defendant’s inclusion of Plaintiff’s name and likeness in the

Security List was in retaliation for Plaintiff’s engagement in the protected

conduct; and

3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for Defendant’s

conduct;

Section 1983

4. Whether Defendant had a policy, practice or custom of creating and

maintaining a Security List at City Hall, which included the names and

likenesses of individuals who law enforcement had not determined were

security threats;

5. Whether Defendant had a policy, practice or custom of allowing non-police

and non-security City of Memphis employees to unilaterally include the

name or likeness of former employees in the Security List without review or

assessment by the Memphis Policy Department of the propriety of including

the former employees in the Security List;


12

6. Whether Plaintiff’s name and likeness were included in the Security List

simultaneous with her termination pursuant to Defendant’s policies,

practices or customs;


Security List injured Plaintiff’s reputation, good name, honor or integrity in

connection with her termination from the Finance Division;


Security List damaged her standing and associations in her community or

imposed a stigma on her that would foreclose her freedom to take

advantage of other employment opportunities;

9. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages for Defendant’s conduct under 42.

U.S.C. § 1983; and

10. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against Defendant,

requiring Defendant to remove Plaintiff’s name and likeness from the

Security List and publicly acknowledge that Plaintiff should not have been

included in the Security List.

Defendant’s Issues of Law:

1. Whether the Plaintiff has established the Elements To Show That She Has

Been Retaliated Against Under the Law based on her alleged Protected

Activity Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA’) as amended 29 U.S.C. §§621 et. seq.

2. Whether the Plaintiff Has Established Any Facts to Show that She was

harmed by her name or likeness being included in the Escort List based on


13

any custom, policy or practice of the City of Memphis in violation of 42

U.S.C. 1983?

3. Whether the Plaintiff Has Established Any Facts to Necessitate the Entry of

a Permanent Injunction Against the City of Memphis.

4. Whether Plaintiff Failed to Establish Any Damages for Which She Can Be

Compensated Under ADEA.

5. Whether the Plaintiff Failed to Establish Any Damage for Which She can be

compensated under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

11. Exhibits:

Plaintiff’s Exhibit List:

1. Title 4 – City of Memphis Pension and Retirement System 2. Finance Division Seniority Listing 3. Financial Management Coordinator Job Description and Minimum

Qualifications 4. Senior Accountant Job Descriptions and Minimum Qualifications

5. February 17, 2016 - Senior Accountant – 2 Openings

6. Accounting Department Restructure Overview – January/February 2016

7. Vivian J. Umfress Separation From Payroll Form – February 8, 2016

8. February 8, 2016 – Separation Notice to State of Tennessee Department of

Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Employment Security

9. Correspondence from Chief Financial Officer Brian Collins to Vivian J. Umfress – February 8, 2016

10. Correspondence from Chief Financial Officer Brian Collins to Edwina

Howard – February 8, 2016

11. Edwina I. Howard Separation From Payroll – February 8, 2016


14

12. Reduction in Force Policy

13. Draft termination letter from Shirley Ford to Jane Umfress – March 20, 2015 (impeachment only)

14. March 29, 2015 - Note to File – Decision to Terminate (impeachment only)

15. May 29, 2015 – email communications between Shirley Ford, Margaret

Coleman and Sharon Cobbige (impeachment only)

16. April 2, 2015 - Shirley Ford Handwritten notes (impeachment only)

17. June 10, 2015 - Email from Quintin Robinson to Shirley Ford and others with handwriting of Shirley Ford re: Jane Umfress (impeachment only)

18. June 17, 2015 (1st) – Draft letter from Shirley Ford to Jane Umfress with

handwriting of Shirley Ford (impeachment only)

19. June 17, 2015 (2nd) – Draft letter from Shirley Ford to Jane Umfress with handwriting of Shirley Ford (impeachment only)

20. July 21, 2015 – Note for File – prepared by Shirley Ford - re: J Umfress

(impeachment only)

21. July 21, 2015 – email from Sharon Cobbige to Shirley Ford re: Disciplinary Recommendation Confirmation (impeachment only)

22. Undated handwritten notes by Shirley Ford – Policy 38-02 (impeachment

only)

23. July 30, 2015 – email from Shirley Ford to Chandell Carr re: Jane Umfress (impeachment only)

24. July 30, 2015 - handwritten note by Shirley Ford (impeachment only)

25. December 16, 2015 – Written Response to Jane Umfress’ EEOC charge

from Andrea Scales William P. Brown (for impeachment only)

26. January 19th and 20th Email communications between Eric Sabatini and Shirley Ford re: Reorg Document

27. February 2, 2016 – email communications between Eric Sabatini and

Shirley Ford


15

28. February 8, 2016 – email communications re: serious concerns – City of Memphis

29. February 12, 2016 – Interoffice Memorandum – Accounting Department

Restructure

30. January 4, 2017 – Memphis Police Department Listing of Persons Barred from Premises

31. Separation Report – January 2010 to July 2018

32. Personnel File – Tamara Webb*

33. Personnel File – George Weaver*

34. Personnel File – Charles Nelson*

35. Personnel File – Equinta Washington*

36. Personnel File - Kanekia Wilson*

37. Personnel File – Joseph Lee Lumpkin *

38. Personnel File – Willie C. Moore*

39. Personnel File – Hattie King*

40. Personnel File – Gabriel Vaughn*

41. Personnel File – Diane Townsend*

42. Personnel File – Eric Bland*

43. Personnel File – Deborah Sturdivant*

44. Personnel File – Demetrius Parson*

45. Personnel File - Elwood Shepherd*

46. All contents of the Security Book

47. Photograph of Vivian Jane Umfress in Security List (front and back)

48. Separation Report

49. All Responses of Defendant City of Memphis to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories


16

50. Plaintiff’s employee badge

51. Fed. R. Evid. 1006 Summary of Plaintiff’s Damages

52. City of Memphis Request to Fill Vacancy (Job Order No. 08-044; March 10,

2008) – Financial Management Coordinator (and application)

53. Financial Management Coordinator 2008 Job Description

Plaintiff reserves the right to introduce into evidence any exhibits designated or

identified by Defendant or which may be necessary to rebut proof presented by

Defendant.

Defendant objects to the entry of all the personnel files noted with an asterisk. Defendant’s Exhibit List:

1. Plaintiff’s Personnel File Documents on the DROP Estimates.* 2. Separation Notice dated February 8, 2016.

3. Separation from Payroll Form.

4. Plaintiff’s File from Tennessee Department of Workforce and Labor

Development (Bates Stamped COM V 001-012).*

5. Plaintiff’s Medical Records from Dr. Scott (001-091).*

6. Security Escort List.

7. Digital Protection Policy (Bates COM II 1-009).

8. Civil Service Transcript of Brian Collins and Exhibits.*

9. Restructure Power Point of the Finance Department (14 pages).

10. Resume' of Vivian Jane Umfress (2 pages).

11. Mark H. Crocker Email 7/2/14 (1 page).

12. Brian Collins' Letter of 2/8/16.


17

13. Plaintiff’s Job Search Communications.

14. Roll Call Documents (COM VII 001-005).

15. Plaintiff’s Response to First Set of Interrogatories.

16. Plaintiff’s Amended Response to First Set of Interrogatories.

17. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission

18. Photograph of Vivian Jane Umfress.

19. Plaintiff’s Tax Records 2013 to present.

20. City of Memphis Reduction in Force Policy June 2011.

21. City of Memphis DROP Policy*

22. City Policy and Procedure Manual (including sections 1400 and 5400;

Employment and Retirement).*

23. Any documents listed by Plaintiff in their exhibit list.

24. Any document needed for rebuttal proof.

Defendant reserves that right to offer into evidence any exhibit offered or listed

by Plaintiff that is properly admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and not

subject to any binding Protective Order.

Plaintiff objects to any and all of the above exhibits designated by an asterisk (*)

12. Witness Lists:

Plaintiff’s Will-Call List:

Vivian Jane Umfress

Sharon Woody Cobbige

Eric Sabatini (by deposition) *

Jill Madajczyk (as Defendant’s Corporate Representative – by deposition)


18

Jill Madajczyk (in her individual capacity – by administrative proceeding

transcript)

Officer Wynterence Moultry (as Defendant’s Corporate Representative – by

deposition)

Brian Collins (by deposition)

Police Chief Michael Rallings (by deposition) *

Ursula Madden

Alexandra Smith

Sgt. Timothy Reynolds (by deposition) *

*Defendant objects to the witnesses marked with an asterisk above *

Plaintiff’s May-Call List:

Shirley Ford

Brent Nair

Edwina Howard*

Janelle Macklin *

Elaine Blanchard*

*Defendant objects to the witnesses marked with an asterisk above *

Defendant’s Will-Call List:

Shirley Ford, Chief Financial Officer for the City of Memphis. Vivian Umfress, Plaintiff Jill Madajczyk, Former Human Resources Manager for the City of Memphis. Sharon Cobbige Woody, Former Supervisor of the Plaintiff. Defendant reserves the right to call any witness listed by the Plaintiff in her


19

pretrial disclosures or called by the Plaintiff to testify at trial for any purpose

permissible under the Rules.

*Plaintiff objects to the witnesses marked with an asterisk above *

Defendant’s May-Call List:

Alexandra Smith, Chief Human Resources Officer

Wynterence Moultry

Brian Collins

(Via deposition designation or live).

Defendant reserves that right to call any properly disclosed witness called by the

Plaintiff to testify at trial not objected to by the Defendant in separate pleading or

in this Order.

13. Deposition Testimony: The parties may use the deposition testimony of any

witness as substantive evidence in the event the witness is unavailable or not subject to

being compelled to testify at the trial in this cause. The parties may also use the

deposition testimony of any witness for impeachment purposes. The parties reserve the

right to use portions of any deposition taken in this cause in any manner permitted under

the Federal Rules of Evidence and/or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The witnesses whose depositions or other sworn testimony may be used in this

case are: Eric Sabatini; Chief Michael Rallings; Sgt. Timothy Reynolds; Shirley Ford;

Sharon Woody Cobbige; Vivian Jane Umfress; Brian Collins; Jill Madajczyk (both

individually and as Defendant’s Corporate Representative under Rule 30(b)(6)); and Off.

Wynterence Moultry (as Defendant’s Corporate Representative under Rule 30(b)(6)).


20

14. Likelihood of Settlement: At the present time, settlement of this case is unlikely.

15. Length of Trial: The parties estimate that the trial in this cause will take

approximately three (3) to four (4) days.

16. Jury Trial: Pursuant to federal law, the trial in this cause shall be a jury trial.

17. Ascertainable Damages: In this cause, the ascertainable, economic damages

have been calculated by Plaintiff to reflect her lost earnings and similar relevant losses.

Defendant objects to the Plaintiff’s statement of her ascertainable damages described

hereafter.

Back Pay

Fiscal Year Paycheck Rate Number of Payrolls Total Income

2016 $2,804.85 (gross) 22 $61,706.70

2017 $2,804.85 (gross) 26 $72,926.10

2018 $2,804.85 (gross) 17.5 $49,084.88

$183,717.68

Remaining Front Pay (through end-date of Plaintiff’s DROP period, if applicable)


2018 $2,804.85 (gross) 4.6 $12,902.31

$12,902.31

DROP Contributions (through end-date of Plaintiff’s 2018 DROP period, if applicable) Fiscal Year Contribution Rate Per Annum Total Income

2016 $50,140.07 1 $50,140.07

2017 $50,140.07 1 $50,140.07

2018 $50,140.07 1 $50,140.07


21

LESS CITY’S 2016 DROP CONTRIBUTION (-$18,802.53)

$131,617.68

Loss of Future Earnings (through age 65)


2018 $2,804.85 (gross) 3.9 $10,938.92

2019 $2,804.85 (gross) 26 $72,926.10

2020 $2,804.85 (gross) 26 $72,926.10

2021 $2,804.85 (gross) 26 $72,926.10

2022 $2,804.85 (gross) 24 $67,316.40

$297,033.62

GRAND TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES (if DROP applicable): $625,271.29

Defendant’s Position on Plaintiff’s Damages:

The Defendant believes that the Plaintiff does not have any ascertainable losses

such that she can be compensated for should she prevail in this matter. She cannot

prove entitlement to back pay, front pay, loss of contributions, retirement losses.

Moreover, there is an outstanding decision from the City of Memphis Civil Service

Retirement Board that may have a bearing on this matter and any damage calculation

in this cause. If the Civil Service Merit Board rules in the favor of the Plaintiff, those

damages would have to be subtracted from any damage request of the Plaintiff in this

cause and her request to return to work would be moot therefore her damages in this

cause should she prevail would be minimal.


22

The Plaintiff voluntarily entered into the City of Memphis’ DROP plan prior to her

job abolishment in October of 2015 and her DROP plan would have ended on or about

October of 2018. Therefore, under the DROP plan and applicable law under the ADEA

the Plaintiff has no viable claim to any front pay damages.

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s foregoing position statement in its entirety. *

18. Special Equipment: Plaintiff and Defendant anticipate the need to utilize the

Court’s special audio/visual equipment during trial.

s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: July 8, 2019


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …Case 2:17-cv-02568-SHL-tmp Document 188 Filed...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …Case 2:17-cv-02568-SHL-tmp Document 188 Filed...