The trial court's apportionment of settlement proceeds between the employee-plaintiffs and the intervening workers' compensation insurance carrier was affirmed. The carrier recovered $5,743.29 for benefits paid, while the employee's wife recovered $3,828.87 for loss of consortium.
What Happened
This case involved Rose Treadeau, who sued her former employer Wausau Area Contractors for wrongfully firing her based on her age, which violates federal age discrimination laws. Treadeau won her lawsuit and received an $18,000 settlement. However, a complication arose: Great American Insurance Companies had previously paid Treadeau workers' compensation benefits, and the insurance company wanted to be reimbursed from her settlement money.
What the Court Decided
The appeals court upheld the trial judge's decision on how to split the $18,000 settlement. The court ruled that Treadeau should receive 40% of the settlement proceeds, while Great American Insurance would be reimbursed for the workers' compensation benefits they had paid out. The court approved the trial judge's formula for dividing the money between Treadeau and the insurance company.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling shows that workers who experience age discrimination can successfully challenge wrongful termination in court. However, workers should understand that if they've received workers' compensation benefits, insurance companies may claim part of any lawsuit settlement as reimbursement. This can reduce the final amount workers receive from discrimination settlements.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.