Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

406 F. Supp. 2d 645 (2005)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

406 F. Supp. 2d 645 (2005)

Facts

Laura Barrios began working for E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) (defendant) in 1981 as a lab operator. Barrios was a 56-year-old woman with severe health conditions that made it difficult for her to walk. Her conditions were stable, and she had a high pain tolerance. DuPont effectively forced Barrios to take short-term disability leave and eventually discharged Barrios on total and permanent disability. Barrios unsuccessfully sought reinstatement at DuPont. Market evidence showed that Barrios would have made less money in similar local positions than she did at DuPont or through disability benefits. In 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (plaintiff) sued DuPont on Barrios’s behalf. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Barrios’s termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and awarded Barrios $91,000 in backpay, $200,000 in front pay, and $1,000,000 in punitive damages, which the court reduced to $300,000 to comply with a statute. The jury calculated five years of backpay minus disability benefits, disregarding one doctor’s testimony that Barrios could not have worked for several of those years. The jury calculated front pay by finding that Barrios would have worked at DuPont until she was 65, adjusting her future salary to reflect modest pay increases, and subtracting future disability benefits. DuPont moved for posttrial relief, challenging the jury’s and district court’s assessment of damages.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Vance, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership