DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Monday, January 30, 2012

Zaniboni v. Massachusetts Trial Court, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 216 (2012)

 Appeals Court -- January 30, 2012

Facts: In 1998, the Trial Court advertised for two level fifteen HAA positions at the Plymouth County Division of the Probate and Family Court. Devitt, Gomes, and the Plaintiff, Zaniboni applied for the HAA positions. When the Plaintiff and Gomes were offered the positions, Devitt filed a grievance and the three above mentioned candidates were reinterviewed. Following the interviews, Gomes and Devitt were offered the HAA positions and the Plaintiff was demoted from her HAA position.

Procedural History: Plaintiff sued the Trial Court, alleging age discrimination in its demotion of her from the HAA position, and the court's failure to designate her as a DAR. The Trial Court (Defendant) moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The trial judge allowed the defendant's motion for a new trial, from which the plaintiff appealed. The defendant cross-appealed from the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Issue: Whether from anywhere in the evidence, a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the plaintiff?

No. The court concluded that denial of the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was an error. The court stated that for the verdict denying the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be sustained if the plaintiff offered any evidence whatsoever from which the jury could have reasonably reached a decision in favor of the plaintiff. It determined that while the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for age discrimination, the defendant was able to show evidence which illustrated that the defendant's motivation for hiring Devitt was due to the fact that she was more qualified than the plaintiff, not due to her age. Furthermore, the plaintiff was unable to refute the defendant's legitimate nondiscriminatory claim that Devitt was more qualified for the HAA position. The order denying the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was reversed. (MS)