Court overturns judgment against Anderson Dairy

Wednesday, June 4, 2003 | 9:57 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a $321,000 judgment against Anderson Dairy, which was sued by an employee who says he was assaulted and then fired for disclosing unsanitary conditions at the Las Vegas business.

The court said District Judge Nancy Saitta made erroneous evidentiary rulings during the trial that denied Anderson the opportunity to present its defense against the claims of Bennett Elliott.

The court also tossed out the $7,218 in sanctions Saitta imposed against Theresa Dowling, attorney for Anderson, who was cited for introducing improper evidence at the trial.

But the court allowed Elliott to pursue other claims at a new trial in district court.

Elliott's suit claimed he should be compensated for a rib fracture when a fellow employee gave him a bear hug during a playful event. The court said Elliott could not collect damages for that incident because he received workers' compensation coverage.

He also claimed he suffered other personal injury including infliction of emotional distress. He did not receive workers' compensation benefits for those injuries and he can pursue a judgment in a new trial.

Elliott also said he was fired in retaliation for his complaints about alleged sanitary problems. Saitta denied this claim and the Supreme Court upheld it.

There were statements at the trial about bacteria at the plant, deer meat being stored in the company's refrigerator, the presence of insects and rodents, water leaks and other food quality issues.

The court said the claim by Elliot that he was fired in retaliation for his comments cannot stand because he "did not report anything to anyone outside of Anderson." And the court said Saitta should not have allowed evidence into the trial about the sanitary conditions.

The court said that evidence "was highly prejudicial, predominately remote in time, cumulative and irrelevant."

Elliott also sued Joseph Gemma, the production manager, and Brian Guido, another superior. These cases were settled out of court, said the decision.

The sanctions against attorney Dowling were imposed in presenting certain testimony that Saitta found was improper. But the Supreme Court said it felt that Dowling could have reasonably believed the "testimony was relevant and admissible."

It said the sanctions were "arbitrary and capricious."