Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MEISSER v. HOVE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION


December 21, 1994

JAMES W. MEISSER, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW C. HOVE, JR., Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance corporation, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: HARRY D. LEINENWEBER

ORDER

 The Court having referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Gottschall pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) for the purposes of conducting a trial pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Magistrate Judge Gottschall having conducted a trial in this cause and further having conducted a hearing on damages in this cause and having made a recommendation which has been adopted by this Court, it is hereby ordered as follows:

 Judgment on liability is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on plaintiff's claim under 29 U.S.C. § 791 (§ 501 claim). Plaintiff's claim under 29 U.S.C. § 794 (§ 504 claim) shall be dismissed for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Gottschall's Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated August 24, 1994.

 It is further ordered with respect to the remedy in this case that:

 1. Plaintiff shall be upgraded effective November 1, 1994, to a Grade 13, Step 5.

 2. Plaintiff shall be awarded backpay in the amount of $ 54,522, which includes pre-judgment interest. The FDIC shall deposit 5% of this amount directly as retroactive contributions into plaintiff's 401(K) account and 7% of this amount directly as retroactive contributions into plaintiff's CSRS pension account.

 3. The FDIC shall make all reasonable accommodations necessary to assist plaintiff in performing his current job functions and to ensure that plaintiff receives training and experience that will help him advance within the FDIC.

 4. Commencing no later than the date of entry of this order, the FDIC shall provide plaintiff with developmental opportunities and training in the areas of complex examination skills and capital markets to equip plaintiff to compete meaningfully for a Grade 14 position. If reasonable accommodations can allow plaintiff to develop his skills in these areas more effectively, such accommodations shall be provided. The following FDIC officials shall have primary responsibility for developing a training program for plaintiff, for monitoring its effectiveness and for ensuring that necessary accommodations are made: Field Office Supervisor Michael E. Apolzan, Assistant Regional Director Thomas J. Wochos, Review Examiner Sherry Gilloffo and Customer Service Representative H.S. (Tuck) Ackerman. The training opportunities to be made available to plaintiff shall include but not be limited to the following:

 a) The FDIC shall send Mr. Meisser to the February 27, 1995 Capital Markets portions of the Financial Institutes Analysis School in Washington, D.C.

 b) The FDIC shall send Mr. Meisser to the Commissioned Examiner Course in Washington, D.C., the week of March 6, 1995.

 c) The FDIC shall send Mr. Meisser to an additional one-week class, provided plaintiff identifies a suitable course being offered at some time during the first year after entry of this order.

 d) The FDIC shall provide Mr. Meisser a detail to the field in the Chicago area where he can obtain experience consistent with the court's order that he be given developmental opportunities. During this detail, any appropriate reasonable accommodations shall be provided to ensure that plaintiff receives maximum developmental benefit from this field experience. Plaintiff's regional office position will remain open to him.

 e) The FDIC shall provide the opportunity, at some point during the first year following entry of this order, for a professional evaluation of plaintiff's speech to determine if a refresher course of speech therapy is likely to be beneficial. If the evaluation indicates speech therapy would be beneficial, plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to attend speech therapy once a week for approximately six to eight weeks. If feasible, this evaluation and therapy should be performed under the supervision of Dr. Garstecki of Northwestern University. The purpose of any such speech therapy is to help Mr. Meisser speak in a manner more readily understandable by hearing people. Speech therapy need not be undertaken if it is unlikely to make any appreciable difference in the clarity of plaintiff's speech.

 5. No less frequently than every six months during the period from November , 1994 to May , 1996, the parties shall report to the Court on the opportunities which have been provided to plaintiff to prepare him to seek Grade 14 status. The Court may extend this eighteen-month period of court supervision if necessary and appropriate. The first status hearing pursuant to this order shall be before Judge on April , 1995 at a.m.

 6. Plaintiff's counsel shall submit a petition for attorneys' fees within 10 days of entry of this order.

 ENTER:

 Harry D. Leinenweber

 United States District Judge

 DATED: 12/21/94

19941221

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.