The LitiGator
Michigan lawyers specializing in civil litigation
http://www.litig8r.net

Categories:
LawTech
Politics


Links:
Reynolds
HowApp
Ernie
Coop
Geek
Bag
Joy
Klau
Olson
Lawson
Kennedy
E-Lawyer
Abstract
Statutory
SCOTUS
Volokh
Heller
Jurist
E-Dicta

Eye


Subscribe to "The LitiGator" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Sunday, December 28, 2003
 

We have written previously about the case of Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler, a sexual harrassment claim which resulted in a $21 million verdict in favor of a woman represented by Geoffrey Fieger.  By virtue of the Michigan Supreme Court's Arguments and Briefs page, we have been able to download and peruse the briefs filed by the parties.  This case is shaping up to be a very interesting case for the Court's consideration.  (A caution for those with narrow pipes:  the briefs are PDF scanned image files, over 10 MB each.)

The arguments of error raised by DaimlerChrysler involve, once more, claims of egregious trial misconduct on the part of Fieger.  DaimlerChrysler asserts that Fieger's arguments went far beyond the scope of permissible advocacy in:

  • making pointed references to the company's German connection (the case was tried just after the Daimler and Chrysler "merger" and involved events that long predated the combination of the companies)
  • claiming that the actions of Chrysler's employees were reminscent of the Holocaust and that the plaintiff's experiences were similar to those of survivors of concentration camps

What is more interesting and potentially more fruitful for the defendant's cause is the testimony offered by a social worker, Mr. Stephen Hnat, who is a long-time friend and confidant of Fieger, who worked on Fieger's gubernatorial race in 1998 and who was an employee of Fieger's law firm at the time of the trial.  These connections were misrepresented to the jury during the trial, it is alleged, with Fieger making it appear that the connection was more casual.  But what appears to my eye to be a much more substantial potential argument of error lies in these points:

  • Hnat was found to have falsified his credentials before the court, claiming to have been granted a Master's Degree in "psychobiology" from the University of Michigan and claiming to have been the recipient of a prestigious award, both of which were found after the trial to have been fabrications. 
  • Hnat's testimony far exceeded the scope of the expertise of a social worker by offering a number of medical opinions, including
  • a prediction of premature death by pancreatitis caused by longstanding alcoholism as a result of the acts of sexual harrassment
  • stating, after a review of the plaintiff's medical records, that her current medical condition "reads like a preview of her death certificate", saying that "she is clearly dying", and suggesting "I wouldn't count on her living very long"
  • claiming that the events in question had caused a "change in her brain chemistry" and that she had a "fatigued brain", which appears to be his way of colorfully characterizing the development of a major depressive disorder and the plaintiff's relapse into alcoholism.

The Gilbert case was argued to the Court on December 10, 2003, and this suggests that a decision could be expected by the Spring of 2004.  The unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the verdict, can be found (in PDF format) at the Court of Appeals web site. 

Items of interest found in the appellant's brief:

  • The Gilbert verdict appears to be the largest sexual harrassment verdict ever awarded in the United States
  • It was seven times larger than any previous sexual harrassment verdict in the State of Michigan

The appellee's brief notes that the trial of the case was handled by Chrysler's in-house attorneys, a fact which perhaps explains why such things as the relationship between Hnat and Fieger and Hnat's fabrication of his qualifications were not uncovered until after the trial was completed.  Less than aggressive trial efforts may blunt the force of the defendant's arguments over these issues.

It is also of interest that Daimler-Chrysler is apparently sparing no effort to use not-so-subtle political influence in the briefing of this case, having retained the law firm of former Supreme Court Justice Patricia Boyle, and the Washington, D.C. firm of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, to handle the appeal, and prominently listing the names of both Boyle and Gibson's Eugene Scalia on its brief. 

Fieger holds the dubious record of having more money taken away in overturned verdicts than any other attorney in this state, and perhaps in the U.S.


5:09:35 PM    


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2004 Franco Castalone.
Last update: 1/1/2004; 7:12:37 PM.
December 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Nov   Jan