Award of punitive damages is supported, in part, by
the fact that human resources assigned the
supervisor who was allegedly retaliating against the plaintiff to
investigate the plaintiff's complaint that this supervisor was
retaliating against him.
Heaton v. The Weitz Co.,
Inc., 534 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. July 24, 2008)
Introduction: This
is a Title VII action alleging retaliation.
Facts: Edward
Heaton, a man of partial Hispanic descent, worked for Weitz as a
superintendent ironworker. He reported directly to Weitz Vice President,
Michael Novy. In March or April 2003, a union superintendent, Noel
Huber, made derogatory statements about Heaton in which he referred to
Heaton as a spic. When Heaton learned of the comments, he complained to
Chantry DeVries in the Human Resources Department. He asked that Novy
not be informed of his complaint because Heaton believed that Huber and Novy were good
friends. However, DeVries assigned Novy to investigate the complaint. Novy determined
that Huber made the comments and he offered Huber a choice of a demotion
or early retirement. Huber took early retirement. A few weeks later
Heaton was at a job site with Brian Henecke where Henecke was project
manager. They got into an argument and Henecke referred to Heaton as a
spic. When Novy learned of the dispute, and without waiting to hear
Heaton's side of the disagreement, Novy informed Heaton that he was
terminated. Heaton had never been in trouble before at Weitz. Novy had
already prepared Heaton's last two paychecks. When Heaton asked if this
was because of Huber, Novy immediately decided to give Heaton a "second
chance." But Novy made Heaton apologize to Henecke, even though Henecke
is the one who called Heaton an offensive name.
After completing this job
(which was at a Quaker Oats site), Heaton was supposed to begin working on a
project at General Mills. But Novy gave the job to another
superintendent and told Heaton that he could be demoted to journeyman
(several job classifications lower) or choose to be laid off. When asked
why he was being demoted, Novy told Heaton, "Things are catching up to
you." Heaton chose to be laid off. Heaton had to turn in his company
truck, tools, and cell phone, even though other superintendents
typically retained these items while temporarily laid off. Also, other
superintendents were typically given "busywork" during a slow period.
Heaton again contacted
DeVries and told her that he thought he was being retaliated against by
Novy. DeVries told Heaton that she had been informed that he had been
offered work, but he told her that that was not true. Although Heaton had
only been offered a multiple-level demotion to journeyman, DeVries did
not consider whether this was how superintendents are normally treated.
Also, although several management positions opened up, Heaton was not
offered those positions. Finally, even though Heaton specifically
alleged retaliation by Novy, DeVries assigned Novy to investigate the
complaint.
District court: A
jury found in Heaton's favor on his retaliation claim. He was awarded
$137,070.44 in compensatory damages, including an award of $73,320.00
for emotional distress. He was also awarded $25,000 in punitive damages.
Appeal: On appeal,
Weitz contends that the district court erred in (1) denying Weitz's Rule
50 motion on Heaton's retaliation claim; (2) submitting punitive damages
to the jury and denying Weitz's Rule 50 motion on punitive damages; (3)
finding Heaton presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's award
of damages for emotional distress; and (4) awarding attorney fees of
$85,446.90.
As a preliminary matter,
Rule 50 motions should only be granted when there is a complete absence
of probative facts to support the verdict and when the record contains
no proof beyond speculation to support the verdict.
With respect to the denial
of Weitz's Rule 50 motion on the retaliation claim, the Court finds
sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
Similarly, with respect to
the punitive damages issue, there was sufficient evidence that Weitz
knew that it might be violating federal law. Novy, who had human
resources experience, withdrew Heaton's termination when Heaton asked
whether he was being terminated because he made a discrimination
complaint against Huber. Also, DeVries was familiar with federal
anti-discrimination law and she was the company contact person for making
discrimination complaints. There is evidence of an absence of good faith
on the part of Weitz, including the fact that DeVries assigned Novy to
investigate a complaint that Novy was retaliating against Heaton.
Therefore, the Court finds sufficient evidence to support the jury
verdict on punitive damages.
With respect to the award
of damages for emotional distress, Heaton presented sufficient evidence
to support the award:
testifying that following his termination, Heaton
felt "inadequate" and had no sense of identity, and Heaton described
how his reputation among his peers was damaged. Heaton went to a
psychologist and a family counselor for help, and he began taking
antidepressant medication, which he was still taking at the time of
trial. The medication had negative side effects, including sweating,
nausea and insomnia.
With respect to attorney's fees, Heaton abandoned three
of his five claims at the summary judgment stage of the case. The
district court reduced his award by 10% based on this fact. The Eighth
Circuit finds no abuse of discretion.