IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION





TIMOTHY J. KNUTSON
Plaintiff,

No. C 01-3015-MWB

vs.



PRELIMINARY AND

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE JURY



AG PROCESSING, INC.,
Defendant.

____________________





TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1

NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1

NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS 2

NO. 3 - BURDEN OF PROOF 3

NO. 4 - ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM 4

NO. 5 - ORDER OF TRIAL 6

NO. 6 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE 7

NO. 7 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES 8

NO. 8 - STIPULATED FACTS 9

NO. 9 - DEPOSITIONS 10

NO. 10 - INTERROGATORIES 11

NO. 11 - OBJECTIONS 12

NO. 12 - BENCH CONFERENCES 13

NO. 13 - NOTE-TAKING 14

NO. 14 - CONDUCT OF JURORS DURING TRIAL 15

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS 17

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION 17

NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES 18

NO. 3 - PERCEIVED DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 19

NO. 4 - DAMAGES--IN GENERAL 23

NO. 5 - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 25

NO. 6 - PUNITIVE DAMAGES 26

NO. 7 - DELIBERATIONS 28



VERDICT FORM

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS



Members of the jury, before the lawyers make their opening statements, I give you these preliminary instructions to help you better understand the trial and your role in it. Consider these instructions, together with any oral instructions given to you during the trial and the written final instructions given at the end of the trial, and apply them as a whole to the facts of the case. In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.



PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS



It will be your duty to decide from the evidence what the facts are. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts. You will hear the evidence, decide what the facts are and then apply those facts to the law which I will give you in these preliminary instructions, any instructions given during the trial, and in the final instructions at the conclusion of the case. You will then deliberate and reach your verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts; but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.

You have been chosen and sworn as jurors in this case to try the issues of fact presented by the parties. Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I will give it to you.

This case should be considered and decided by you as an action between persons of equal standing in the community, of equal worth, and holding the same or similar stations in life. In this case, defendant Ag Processing, Inc., is a corporation. The mere fact that a party is a corporation does not mean that it is entitled to any greater or lesser consideration by you. All persons, including Timothy Knutson and Ag Processing, stand equal before the law, and are entitled to the same fair consideration by you. When a corporation such as Ag Processing is involved, of course, it may act only through natural persons, such as its managers, as its agents.

You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - BURDEN OF PROOF



In these instructions, you are told that your verdict depends on whether you find certain facts have been proved. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party whose claim depends upon that fact. In this case, unless I tell you otherwise, that party is plaintiff Timothy Knutson.

The party with the burden of proof must prove facts by the "greater weight of the evidence." To prove something "by the greater weight of the evidence" means to prove that it is more likely true than not true. The "greater weight of the evidence" is determined by considering all of the evidence and deciding which evidence is more believable. If, on any issue in the case, you find that the evidence is equally balanced, then you cannot find that the issue has been proved.

The "greater weight of the evidence" is not necessarily determined by the greater number of witnesses or exhibits a party has presented. The testimony of a single witness that produces in your mind a belief in the likelihood of truth is sufficient for proof of any fact and would justify a verdict in accordance with such testimony. This is so, even though a number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if, after consideration of all of the evidence in the case, you hold a greater belief in the accuracy and reliability of that one witness.

You may have heard of the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a stricter standard, which applies in criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as this. You should, therefore, put it out of your minds.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - ELEMENTS OF

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM





As I explained during jury selection, plaintiff Timothy Knutson has brought this lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, which, among other things, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate intentionally against an employee because the employer regards or perceives the employee to be disabled. In these instructions, I will describe a claim under this part of the ADA as a "perceived disability discrimination claim."

More specifically, Mr. Knutson alleges that he was discharged from his employment because Ag Processing perceived him to be disabled, even though he is not actually disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Ag Processing, however, contends that it did not perceive Mr. Knutson to be disabled, but instead discharged him for videotaping the inside of the Ag Processing facility without permission.

To win his claim of "perceived disability discrimination," Mr. Knutson must prove the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

One, Ag Processing perceived Mr. Knutson as having physical impairments that substantially limited him in the major life activity of working;

Two, Mr. Knutson could have performed the essential functions of his job at the time that Ag Processing terminated him;

Three, Ag Processing terminated Mr. Knutson; and

Four, Mr. Knutson's perceived limitations were a motivating factor in Ag Processing's decision to terminate him.

If Mr. Knutson proves all of the elements of his claim of perceived disability discrimination, then he is entitled to damages in some amount. However, if you find in favor of Mr. Knutson on his claim of perceived disability discrimination, then you must also consider whether Ag Processing has proved, by the greater weight of the evidence, that it would have terminated Mr. Knutson even if it had not considered Mr. Knutson's perceived limitations in making the decision to terminate him. You need not be concerned with the effect of your determination on this "same decision" question; the effect of your determination on this question is for me to decide.



This is only a preliminary outline of the elements of Mr. Knutson's claim. At the end of the trial, I will give you further final written instructions that explain Mr. Knutson's claim. Because the final instructions are more detailed, those instructions govern on the elements of Mr. Knutson's claim.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - ORDER OF TRIAL



The trial will proceed as follows:

After these preliminary instructions, the plaintiff's attorney may make an opening statement. Next, the lawyer for the defendant may make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence, but simply a summary of what the lawyer expects the evidence to be.

After opening statements, the plaintiff will present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyer for the defendant may cross-examine them. Following the plaintiff's case, the defendant may present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyer for the plaintiff may cross-examine them.

After the evidence is concluded, I will give you most of the final instructions. The lawyers will then make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. As with opening statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will then give you the remaining final instruction on deliberations, and you will retire to deliberate on your verdict.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE



Evidence is:

1. Testimony.

2. Exhibits I admit into evidence.

3. Stipulations, which are agreements between the parties.

Evidence may be "direct" or "circumstantial." The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct and circumstantial evidence. The weight to be given any evidence is for you to decide.

A particular item of evidence is sometimes admitted only for a limited purpose, and not for any other purpose. I will tell you if that happens, and instruct you on the purposes for which the item can and cannot be used.

The fact that an exhibit may be shown to you does not mean that you must rely on it more than you rely on other evidence.

The following are not evidence:

1. Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by the lawyers.

2. Objections and rulings on objections.

3. Testimony I tell you to disregard.

4. Anything you saw or heard about this case outside the courtroom.

The weight of the evidence is not determined by the number of witnesses testifying as to the existence or non-existence of any fact. Also, the weight of the evidence should not be determined merely by the number or volume of documents or exhibits. The weight of evidence depends on its quality, not quantity. The quality and weight of the evidence are for you to decide.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES



In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness says, only part of it, or none of it.

In deciding what testimony to believe, consider the witness's intelligence, the opportunity the witness had to have seen or heard the things testified about, the witness's memory, any motives that witness may have for testifying a certain way, the manner of the witness while testifying, whether that witness said something different at an earlier time, the witness's drug or alcohol use or addiction, if any, the general reasonableness of the testimony, and the extent to which the testimony is consistent with any evidence that you believe. In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes see or hear things differently and sometimes forget things. You need to consider, therefore, whether a contradiction results from an innocent misrecollection or sincere lapse of memory, or instead from an intentional falsehood or pretended lapse of memory.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - STIPULATED FACTS



The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed or "stipulated" to certain facts and have reduced these facts to a written agreement or stipulation. Either counsel may, throughout the trial, read to you all or a portion of the stipulated facts. You should treat these stipulated facts as having been proved.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - DEPOSITIONS





Certain testimony from a deposition may be read into evidence. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before the trial and preserved in writing. Consider that testimony as if it had been given in court.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - INTERROGATORIES



During this trial, you may hear the word "interrogatory." An interrogatory is a written question asked by one party of another, who must answer it under oath in writing. Consider interrogatories and the answers to them as if the questions had been asked and answered here in court.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - OBJECTIONS



The lawyers may make objections and motions during the trial that I must rule upon. If I sustain an objection to a question before it is answered, do not draw any inferences or conclusions from the question itself. Also, the lawyers have a duty to object to testimony or other evidence that they believe is not properly admissible. Do not hold it against a lawyer or the party the lawyer represents because the lawyer has made objections.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - BENCH CONFERENCES



During the trial it may be necessary for me to talk with the lawyers out of the hearing of the jury, either by having a bench conference here while the jury is present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please be patient, because while you are waiting, we are working. The purpose of these conferences is to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence, to avoid confusion and error, and to save your valuable time. We will, of course, do what we can to keep the number and length of these conferences to a minimum.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 13 - NOTE-TAKING



If you want to take notes during the trial, you may, but be sure that your note-taking does not interfere with listening to and considering all the evidence. If you choose not to take notes, remember that it is your own individual responsibility to listen carefully to the evidence.

Notes you take during the trial are not necessarily more reliable than your memory or another juror's memory. Therefore, you should not be overly influenced by the notes.

If you take notes, do not discuss them with anyone before you begin your deliberations. At the end of each day, please leave your notes on your chair. At the end of the trial, you may take your notes out of the notebook and keep them, or leave them, and we will destroy them. No one will read the notes, either during or after the trial.

You will notice that we have an official court reporter making a record of the trial. However, we will not have typewritten transcripts of this record available for your use in reaching your verdict.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 - CONDUCT OF JURORS

DURING TRIAL





You will not be required to remain together while court is in recess. However, to insure fairness, you as jurors must obey the following rules:

First, do not talk among yourselves about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the end of the case when you go to the jury room to decide on your verdict.

Second, do not talk with anyone else about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the trial has ended and you have been discharged as jurors.

Third, when you are outside the courtroom do not let anyone tell you anything about the case, or about anyone involved with it until the trial has ended and your verdict has been accepted by me. If someone should try to talk to you about the case during the trial, please report it to me.

Fourth, during the trial you should not talk with or speak to any of the parties, lawyers, or witnesses involved in this case--you should not even pass the time of day with any of them. It is important that you not only do justice in this case, but that you also give the appearance of doing justice. If a person from one side of the case sees you talking to a person from the other side--even if it is simply to pass the time of day--an unwarranted and unnecessary suspicion about your fairness might be aroused. If any lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in the hall, ride the elevator or the like, it is because they are not supposed to talk or visit with you.

Fifth, do not read any news stories or articles about the case, or about anyone involved with it, or listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about anyone involved with it. If you want, you can have your spouse or a friend clip out any stories and set them aside to give you after the trial is over. I can assure you, however, that by the time you have heard the evidence in this case you will know more about the matter than anyone will learn through the news media.

Sixth, do not do any research--on the Internet, in libraries, in the newspapers, or in any other way--or make any investigation about this case on your own. You must decide this case based on the evidence presented in court and the law as I explain it to you in my instructions.

Seventh, do not make up your mind during the trial about what the verdict should be. Keep an open mind until after you have gone to the jury room to decide the case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence.

Eighth, if at anytime during the trial you have a problem that you would like to bring to my attention, or if you feel ill or need to go to the restroom, please send a note to the Court Security Officer, who will deliver it to me. I want you to be comfortable, so please do not hesitate to inform me of any problem.

DATED this 24th day of February, 2003.







__________________________________

MARK W. BENNETT

CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION



Members of the jury, the written instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and the oral instructions I gave you during the trial remain in effect. I now give you some additional instructions.

The instructions I am about to give you, as well as the preliminary instructions given to you at the beginning of the trial, are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. All instructions, whenever given and whether in writing or not, must be followed. This is true even though some of the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial are not repeated here.

In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

Neither in these instructions nor in any ruling, action, or remark that I have made during the course of this trial have I intended to give any opinion or suggestion as to what your verdict should be.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES





In Preliminary Instruction No. 7, I instructed you generally on the credibility of witnesses. However, I must now give you some further instructions on how the credibility of witnesses can be "impeached."

Any witness may be discredited or "impeached" by contradictory evidence; by a showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter; or by evidence that at some other time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. If earlier statements of a witness were admitted into evidence, they were not admitted to prove that the contents of those statements were true. Instead, you may consider those earlier statements only to determine whether you think they are consistent or inconsistent with the trial testimony of the witness, and, therefore, whether they affect the credibility of that witness.

If you believe that a witness has been discredited or impeached, it is your exclusive right to give that witness's testimony whatever weight you think it deserves.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - PERCEIVED DISABILITY

DISCRIMINATION





Mr. Knutson alleges that he was discharged from his employment because Ag Processing perceived him to be disabled, even though he is not actually disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Ag Processing, however, contends that it did not perceive Mr. Knutson to be disabled, but instead discharged him for videotaping the inside of the Ag Processing facility without permission.

To win his claim of perceived disability discrimination, Mr. Knutson must prove the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

One, Ag Processing perceived Mr. Knutson as having physical impairments that substantially limited him in the major life activity of working.

A "perceived disability" is one based on speculation, stereotype, or myth about the limiting effects of the plaintiff's impairments or perceived impairments rather than upon an individualized inquiry into the plaintiff's actual condition. There are two ways in which an employer "perceives" an employee to be disabled: (1) the employer mistakenly believes that the employee has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, when the employee does not have an impairment; or (2) the employer mistakenly believes that an impairment that an employee actually has substantially limits one or more major life activities when, in fact, the employee's actual impairment is not so limiting.

To determine whether Ag Processing perceived Mr. Knutson to be substantially limited in a major life activity, you should consider (1) the nature and severity of any actual impairment and the nature and severity of the impairment as perceived by the employer; (2) the duration or expected duration of any actual impairment or perceived impairment; and (3) the permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact, of or resulting from any actual impairment or perceived impairment.

With respect to the major life activity of "working," the term "substantially limits" means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. The inability or perceived inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation or perception of a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. Therefore, you should also consider Ag Processing's perceptions of Mr. Knutson's ability to work in light of the following factors: (1) the geographical area to which he has reasonable access; (2) the job from which he is perceived to be disqualified because of an impairment or perceived impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which he is also perceived to be disqualified because of the impairment or perceived impairment (class of jobs); and/or (3) the job from which he is perceived to be disqualified because of an impairment or perceived impairment, and the number and types of other jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which he is also perceived to be disqualified because of the impairment or perceived impairment (broad range of jobs in various classes).

However, an employer does not perceive an employee to be disabled if the employer's conclusion that the employee is unable to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes is a reasonable one based upon an individualized inquiry that takes into account medical or other evidence concerning the employee's actual ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.





Two, Mr. Knutson could have performed the essential functions of his job at the time that Ag Processing terminated him.

The term "essential functions of his job" means the fundamental job duties of the employment position that the plaintiff held. The term "essential functions" does not include the marginal functions of the position. In determining whether a job function is essential, you should consider the following factors: (1) The employer's judgment as to which functions of the job are essential; (2) written job descriptions; (3) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function in question; (4) consequences of not requiring the person to perform the function; (5) the work experience of persons who have held the job; (6) the current work experience of persons in similar jobs; (7) whether the reason the position exists is to perform the function; and (8) whether there are a limited number of employees available among whom the performance of the function can be distributed. No one factor is necessarily controlling. You should consider all of the evidence in deciding whether a job function is essential.



Three, Ag Processing terminated Mr. Knutson.

Four, Mr. Knutson's perceived limitations were a motivating factor in Ag Processing's decision to terminate him.

A "motivating factor" is a factor that played a part or played a role in Ag Processing's decision to terminate Mr. Knutson or moved Ag Processing toward its decision. However, Mr. Knutson's perceived disability need not be the only reason for Ag Processing's decision to terminate him to be "a motivating factor" in that decision.

Ag Processing contends that it did not perceive Mr. Knutson to be disabled, but instead discharged him for videotaping the inside of the Ag Processing facility at Eagle Grove, Iowa, where he was employed, without permission. You may find that Mr. Knutson's perceived disability was a motivating factor in Ag Processing's decision to terminate him, if Mr. Knutson has proved by the greater weight of the evidence that Ag Processing's stated reason for its decision is not the true reason, but is instead a pretext to hide perceived disability discrimination. However, you cannot find that this element has been proved simply because you disagree with Ag Processing's decision to terminate Mr. Knutson or because you believe that decision was harsh or unreasonable. Instead, this element is only proved if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Mr. Knutson's perceived disability was a motivating factor for Ag Processing's decision to terminate him.



Unless Mr. Knutson proves all of these elements by the greater weight of the evidence, your verdict must be for Ag Processing on Mr. Knutson's claim of perceived disability discrimination. However, if you find that Mr. Knutson has proved all of these elements by the greater weight of the evidence, then he is entitled to damages in some amount.

If you find in favor of Mr. Knutson on his claim of perceived disability discrimination, then you must also consider whether Ag Processing has proved, by the greater weight of the evidence, that it would have terminated Mr. Knutson even if it had not considered Mr. Knutson's perceived limitations in making the decision to terminate him. Ag Processing contends that it terminated Mr. Knutson for making a videotape of the inside of the Eagle Grove plant without the permission of his supervisor or the plant manager, and then providing the videotape to persons who were not employees of Ag Processing. Ag Processing contends that it would have terminated Mr. Knutson for this reason even if it had not considered Mr. Knutson's perceived limitations in making its decision to terminate him. You need not be concerned with the effect of your determination on this "same decision" question; the effect of your determination on this question is for me to decide.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - DAMAGES--IN GENERAL





The fact that I am instructing you on the proper measure of damages should not be considered as an indication that I have any view as to which party is entitled to your verdict in this case. Instructions as to the measure of damages are given only for your guidance in the event that you should find that the plaintiff is entitled to damages in accord with the other instructions.

If you find in favor of Mr. Knutson on his perceived disability discrimination claim, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, then you must award Mr. Knutson such sum as you find by the greater weight of the evidence will fairly and justly compensate him for any damages that you find were proximately caused to him by perceived disability discrimination. An act is a "proximate cause" of damage if the act was a substantial factor in producing the damage and the damage would not have happened except for the act. "Substantial" means that the act had such an effect in producing damage as to lead a reasonable person to regard it as a cause of the damage.

In arriving at an amount of damages, you cannot establish a figure by taking down the estimate of each juror as to damages and agreeing in advance that the average of those estimates shall be your award of damages. Rather, you must use your sound judgment based upon an impartial consideration of the evidence.

Remember, throughout your deliberations, you must not engage in any speculation, guess, or conjecture. Except where instructed otherwise, in your consideration of punitive damages in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, you must not award damages under these Instructions by way of punishment or through sympathy. Your judgment must not be exercised arbitrarily, or out of sympathy or prejudice, for or against any of the parties.

You must award the full amount of damages that the plaintiff has proved by the greater weight of the evidence. However, the amount you assess for damages must not exceed the amount proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant as proved by the evidence.

Attached to these Instructions is a verdict form, which you must fill out. In the "Compensatory Damages" section of the verdict form, Step 2, you should only award those damages, if any, that the plaintiff has proved by the greater weight of the evidence were proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES



Mr. Knutson first seeks "compensatory damages" on his perceived disability discrimination claim for emotional distress and backpay.

Emotional distress damages. Damages for "emotional distress" are the amount of damages that will reasonably compensate Mr. Knutson for the emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life that were proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of Ag Processing. The amount, if any, that you assess for damages for emotional distress cannot be measured by an exact or mathematical standard, and the plaintiff is not required to introduce evidence of the monetary value of such damages. However, you must use your sound judgment based upon an impartial consideration of the evidence to determine the amount of such damages. Damages for emotional distress must compensate Mr. Knutson for any emotional distress that he suffered from the time of the wrongful conduct until the time that you give your verdict. You may also award future emotional distress damages, but only if you find that Mr. Knutson has proved that his emotional distress proximately caused by Ag Processing's wrongful conduct is reasonably certain to extend into the future.

Backpay. Mr. Knutson also seeks an award of backpay, which is the amount of any wages and fringe benefits that he would have earned from the date he was terminated until the date of your verdict, minus the wages and fringe benefits, if any, he actually did earn during that time from other employment after he was terminated from his job with Ag Processing. However, do not deduct from any award of backpay any workers' compensation or unemployment benefits paid to Mr. Knutson after he was terminated from his job with Ag Processing.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - PUNITIVE DAMAGES



In addition to the "compensatory damages" described in Final Jury Instruction No. 5, the law permits the jury, under certain circumstances, to award "punitive damages" in order to punish the defendant for some extraordinary misconduct and to serve as an example or warning to others not to engage in such conduct. Therefore, if you find that Mr. Knutson has proved his claim of perceived disability discrimination, then you must consider what, if any, punitive damages you should award. Whether or not to award punitive damages, and the amount of such punitive damages, are for you to decide.

You may award punitive damages only if you find that Mr. Knutson has proved the following by the greater weight of the evidence:

One, Ag Processing acted with malice or reckless indifference to Mr. Knutson's right not to be discriminated against on the basis of his perceived disability.

Ag Processing acted with malice or reckless indifference if Mr. Knutson proves by the greater weight of the evidence that Ag Processing knew that terminating him was in violation of the law prohibiting perceived disability discrimination, or acted with reckless disregard of that law.



Two, it is appropriate to punish Ag Processing or to deter Ag Processing and others from like conduct in the future.

However, you may not award punitive damages if Ag Processing has proved by the greater weight of the evidence that it made a good-faith effort to comply with the law prohibiting perceived disability discrimination.

In determining the amount of punitive damages, if any, to award, you should consider how offensive Ag Processing's conduct was; what amount is needed, considering Ag Processing's financial condition, to punish Ag Processing for its wrongful conduct toward Mr. Knutson and to prevent a repetition of that wrongful conduct in the future; whether the amount of punitive damages bears a reasonable relationship to the actual damages awarded on Mr. Knutson's claim; and what sum is sufficient to deter other similar employers from similar wrongful conduct in the future. Again, whether or not to award punitive damages, and the amount of such punitive damages, are for you to decide.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - DELIBERATIONS



In conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain rules you must follow.

First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of your members as your foreperson. That person will preside over your discussions and speak for you here in court.

Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another in the jury room. You should try to reach agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion persuades you that you should, but do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach a verdict. Remember at all times that you are not partisans. You are judges--judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case.

Third, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may send a note to me through the Court Security Officer, signed by one or more jurors. I will respond as soon as possible either in writing or orally in open court. Remember that you should not tell anyone--including me--how your votes stand numerically.

Fourth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law which I have given to you in my instructions. Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should be--that is entirely for you to decide.

Finally, I am giving you the verdict form. A verdict form is simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. Your verdict must be unanimous. You will take the verdict form to the jury room. When you have reached a unanimous verdict, your foreperson must complete one copy of the verdict form and all of you must sign that copy to record your individual agreement with the verdict and to show that it is unanimous. The foreperson must bring the signed verdict form to the courtroom when it is time to announce your verdict. When you have reached a verdict, the foreperson will advise the Court Security Officer that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

DATED this ___th day of February, 2003.







__________________________________

MARK W. BENNETT

CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION



TIMOTHY J. KNUTSON,
Plaintiff,

No. C 01-3015-MWB

vs.





VERDICT FORM



AG PROCESSING, INC.,
Defendant.

____________________



On the claim of plaintiff Timothy J. Knutson, we, the Jury, find as follows:

PERCEIVED DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION VERDICT
Step 1:

Liability

On the claim of perceived disability discrimination, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, in whose favor do you find? _____ Mr. Knutson

_____ Ag Processing

Step 2:

Compensatory Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. Knutson, what amount of compensatory damages, if any, do you award for the following items of damages? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 5.) Past emotional distress $ _______________
Future emotional distress $ _______________
Backpay $ _______________
Step 3:

Punitive Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. Knutson, what amount, if any, do you award as punitive damages for perceived disability discrimination? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 6.)



$ _______________
Step 4:

Same Decision

If you found in favor of Mr. Knutson on his claim of perceived disability discrimination, has Ag Processing proved, by the greater weight of the evidence, that it would have terminated Mr. Knutson even if it had not considered Mr. Knutson's perceived limitations in making the decision to terminate him? (Remember that you need not be concerned with the effect of your determination on this "same decision" question; the effect of your determination on this question is for me to decide.)



_____ Yes

_____ No





Date: ________________ Time: ________________



_______________________________

Foreperson

_______________________________

Juror







__________________________________

Juror







__________________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror