Tullis v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
243 F.3d 1058 (2001)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
William Tullis (plaintiff) sued his employer, Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Company (Townley) (defendant) for retaliatory discharge for filing a workers’ compensation claim after injuring his back. Tullis alone testified at trial about the psychological distress that his discharge caused. Tullis did not claim that he suffered from depression, fits of anger, or physical symptoms but said he felt “low” and “degraded” when Townley laid him off and “back-stabbed” when Townley opposed his unemployment claim. Tullis said he was out of work for nine or 10 months, which affected his personal life because he had to borrow money from family and friends, had his lights and phone cut off, and could not afford clothes for his children, take them out for meals or shopping, or pay his child support. When Tullis found a new job, it was as a trucker and required time away from home, whereas Townley was a convenient five minutes away. Tullis did not ask for a specific amount but simply asked the jury to do “what’s fair.” The jury awarded Tullis $80,185 in nonpecuniary damages for mental anguish and inconvenience. Townley requested a new trial and remittitur, but the district court upheld the award. Townley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.