Disability discrimination verdict is affirmed on appeal

The Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a high school student who was thrown off the baseball team because of his disability. The Court also finds the trial judge abused his discretion in reducing plaintiff's attorneys' fees by 80%.

The case is Spring v. Allegany-Limestone Central School District, a summary order issued on April 10. I briefed the appeal. A.J. Bosman tried the case and argued the appeal.

The plaintiff had multiple disabilities. As the Second Circuit summarizes this issue, plaintiff had "Tourette’s and Callosum Dysgenesis, conditions that restricted his ability to process information, 'put his  thoughts into words,' and speak. When Gregory did speak, verbal tics, such as repeating the 'F' word, interrupted and distracted him. These conditions also inhibited Gregory’s ability to control and articulate his emotions.  When Gregory was trying to get a word out, process what was going on, or respond to authority, he became anxious and upset." In this state, he would act act impulsively and get into verbal confrontations. On these facts, the jury had reason to find plaintiff was disabled under federal law.

During a baseball team practice, the boys were playing a game where they kicked each other. After Gregory kicked a teammate, the coach singled him out for discipline, and Gregory used the "F" word and told the coach to "suck it." The coach sent Gregory home and he was off the team. At trial, the coach admitted that he removed Gregory from the team for "what he said" and "the way he acted after he kicked the other student." That admission confirms he was removed from the team because of his disability and not for kicking a teammate. The coach knew about Gregory's disability and his tendency to use foul language, a condition over which he had no control. The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Wesley and Sannes [D.J.]), affirms the verdict.

Following the verdict, a plaintiff's lawyer will file a motion for attorneys' fees. The trial court generally will multiply the number of attorney and paralegal hours by their hourly rates and then perform a downward departure if the plaintiff was not fully successful at trial or the billing records contain vague or otherwise improper entries. The 80% reduction in this case went too far, the Court of Appeals holds, as the vague time entries were not so severe as to warrant this steep reduction, and the trial court miscalculated the degree of plaintiff's success in the case, as the student-on-student harassment claim, which plaintiff lost at trial, involved a similar core of facts as the successful baseball team expulsion claim. The fee motion returns to the trial court for further review.