Las Vegas Strip anchor The Bellagio is getting a chance at redemption in a lawsuit that dates back almost six years. It was in 2014 that former employee Andi Kraja was allegedly ridiculed for his weight, ultimately leading to coworkers branding him with the moniker Fat Andy. When he took the casino to court for not doing anything to prevent the name-calling, a jury last year awarded him $500,000, but Bellagio is now claiming that Kraja lied in court. According to an update in the case by Law360.com, a federal judge has agreed.
The Bellagio had inflicted “emotional distress” on the former food service worker by not stepping in and controlling the actions of the other employees, according to Kraja. A sign had reportedly been placed at his workstation on several occasions that carried the unwanted moniker, and Kraja stated under oath that he had visual evidence of the sign. That evidence came in the form of pictures he allegedly took in June and August 2014.
Kraja had alleged that the sign was essentially permanently installed – encased in plexiglass – and was present for several months. However, fellow employees who testified for Bellagio said that they never saw any sign.
After the jury awarded Kraja his payout last year, Bellagio filed a brief with the court shortly after with the help of new lawyers and new forensics, arguing that the entire case had been fabricated by the disgruntled former employee. To support their claims, they provided documentation that asserted that the two photographs had not been taken on the dates Kraja had claimed – both had been taken the same day in August, only minutes apart.
Federal Judge Andrew Gordon has now reviewed the rebuttal and agreed that a retrial is necessary. In issuing his ruling on January 6, he explained that the two photos were the anchor of Kraja’s lawsuit and any questions over their legitimacy would cause the entire case to crumble. Gordon added, “I am loathe to overturn a jury’s verdict. But where, as here, the false testimony was about a critical piece of evidence, and Kraja relied heavily on that evidence to prove both liability and damages.”
Gordon also took the opportunity of his ruling to chastise Bellagio and its lawyers for not doing a better job in its defense. He ordered that, ahead of the retrial, the casino should pay Kraja’s legal fees from the first trial and added, “Had Bellagio timely discovered this issue — and there is no reason it could not and should not have done so during the discovery period — a second trial would not be necessary. It is difficult to understand why Bellagio did not pursue this during discovery, given that each side’s story about the photograph was directly contradictory.”
