Matter of DePaoli v. Great A & P Tea Co.
New York Court of Appeals
94 N.Y.2d 377, 725 N.E.2d 1089, 704 N.Y.S.2d 527 (2000)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Nick DePaoli (plaintiff) was the manager of a supermarket owned by the Great A & P Tea Company (A&P) (defendant) in Goldens Bridge, New York. DePaoli had worked for A&P for 25 years and had managed the Goldens Bridge store for two years. In a short period of time, A&P made a series of personnel changes involving other managers and a night crew that caused DePaoli to have to substantially increase his work hours and led to significant stress. A&P’s reassignment of the night crew to a day shift meant that the crew members had to clean the store and restock shelves while the store was busy, which created numerous challenges for DePaoli. Upper management criticized DePaoli during a store visit for not handling the changes well. Believing he was experiencing the symptoms of a heart attack, DePaoli went to a hospital and was diagnosed with a panic disorder. DePaoli was hospitalized for five days and was not able to return to work for several months. During DePaoli’s absence, the other managers were fired for incompetence, and the night crew was reinstated. A&P opposed DePaoli’s workers’-compensation claim and initially prevailed, but the workers’-compensation board reversed and awarded benefits to DePaoli. The appellate division affirmed, and A&P appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
