Radecki v. GlaxoSmithKline - Connecticut Employment Law Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Radecki filed this action, claiming that GSK terminated hisemployment in retaliation for him exercising his rights under theFMLA, terminated his employment in retaliation for him engagingin protected speech, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes§ 31-51q, and terminated his employment in violation of publicpolicy. GSK contends that it terminated Radecki’s employmentonly after a compliance investigation revealed that the plaintiffhad, on at least ten different occasions, falsified companyrecords regarding his call reporting activities, and then onlyafter allowing him to take advantage of FMLA leave it hadapproved. The court granted summary judgment in favor of GSK onthe second claim, and the case proceeded to trial on the FMLAretaliation and wrongful termination in violation of publicpolicy claims.Because Radecki had only worked for a relatively shortperiod during the almost four years since GSK terminated hisemployment, one of the issues at trial was whether he hadmitigated damages. During his direct examination on May 7, 2009,Radecki’s attorney asked him about his efforts to find work afterthe date on which GSK terminated his employment. The pertinenttestimony is as follows:Q: Did there ever come a time that you stopped lookingfor work?A: Yes.Q: When?A: In November of last year.Q: Why?-2-
A: Because of the last week of October I learned that Ihad -- have stage III prostate cancer with a metastaticbrain lesion.Q. How long did that -- did you get treatment for that?A. Yes.Q. When was that concluded?A. Well, the major -- the major conclusion was I hadsurgery in January.Q. Did you resume your job search after that?A. I have at least on paper. I’m still inrehabilitative mode.(Trial Tr. Vol. I, 152, May 7, 2009.) The plaintiff’s counselhad not known anything about “a metastatic brain lesion” untilhis testimony was given.After the jury had been excused for the day, defense counselexpressed a concern that “Radecki’s Stage III metastatic cancerwas not disclosed” to the defense, notwithstanding the pertinentinterrogatory and production request that had been propounded bythe defendant, and stated that had it been disclosed, thedefense, would have moved in limine with respect to thatevidence. Id. at 193. The plaintiff’s counsel stated inresponse that a document provided a week earlier, i.e., a copy ofRadecki’s request for an extension for paying his taxes for 2008,which admittedly was not responsive to the pertinentinterrogatory and production request, contained a statement thatRadecki had undergone cancer treatment. The court did notaddress that issue but, rather, observed that had a motion inlimine been filed, it would have been granted and that theplaintiff would have been allowed only to make a general-3-
Page 1: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRIC
Page 5 and 6: proceeded with the understanding th
Page 7 and 8: merely told the jurors not to consi
Page 9 and 10: (Trial Tr. Vol. I, 152, May 7, 2009
Page 11 and 12: change conveyed to the jury not jus
Page 13 and 14: discovery tactics designed and inte
Page 15 and 16: Id. at 1301. In Rybner v. Cannon De
Page 17 and 18: sanction in response to perjury is
Page 19 and 20: his case before a new jury would gi

Radecki v. GlaxoSmithKline - Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?