Adam Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., 787 F.3d 106

Adam Wiercinski, Jewish Polish immigrant, worked for Mangia 57 and other Mangia locations from ~1984 to 2007.
Zbozien, a Mangia night-shift manager, allegedly subjected Wiercinski to anti-Semitic harassment over eight years.
Wiercinski complained to supervisor Cymanow; she allegedly discouraged complaints and temporarily removed the harasser, transferring him away.
Wiercinski remained employed for years despite harassment, and requested transfers to favorable shifts; he took a leave in 2007 and was not rehired.
In Oct. 2009, Wiercinski sued Mangia and several individuals for discrimination and related claims; trial in 2013-2014 led to a hostile environment verdict under §1981 with $1 nominal and $900,000 punitive damages.
District court vacated the liability verdict, denied fees, and granted a new trial on punitive damages; the Second Circuit affirmed vacatur of punitive damages but reversed on the liability/nominal damages and remanded for fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supervisor liability supports the hostile environment finding	Wiercinski argued Zbozien was a supervisor; Mangia argues he was a co-worker.	Mangia contends Zbozien was not a supervisor under Vance; liability should hinge on co-worker harassment.	Jury’s liability finding reinstated; district court erred in vacating the verdict.
Whether punitive damages were proper given the record	Wiercinski asserts defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference.	Mangia argues no malice or outrageous conduct shown; actions were remedial and in good faith.	Punitive damages vacated; record lacking malice or reckless indifference to justify punitive award.
Whether a nominal damages winner is entitled to fees	Nominal damages still prevailing party under §1988 entitled to fees.	Fees unnecessary where liability is vacated and punitive damages eliminated.	Remand for calculation of fees; plaintiff may recover fees consistent with Farrar.
Standard of review for Rule 50(b) vacation of verdict	Evidence viewed in favor of non-movant; jury credibility determinations defer to jury.	District court’s weighing of credibility warranted remittitur/new trial.	Affirmed vacatur of punitive damages but reversed on liability/nominal damages; remand for fees.

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court 1993) (severe or pervasive standard for hostile environment; objective/subjective components)
Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (applies Title VII standards to §1981 discrimination claims)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Supreme Court 1998) (employer strict liability for supervisor harassment; Faragher defense)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (Supreme Court 2013) (defines supervisor for vicarious liability; control over tangible employment actions)
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (Supreme Court 1999) (punitive damages require evil motive or reckless indifference; vicarious liability limits)
Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2011) (discretionary nature of punitive damages; standards for remittitur/new trial)
Carrion v. Agfa Constr., Inc., 720 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2013) (affirming vacatur where no evidence of malice or reckless indifference)
Space Hunters, Inc. v. United States, 429 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 2005) (evidence standards for punitive damages; support for state of mind analysis)
Tolbert v. Queens College, 242 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2001) (credibility and evidence weighing limits on Rule 50(b) challenges)
Fairbrother v. Morrison, 412 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2005) (limits on judicial fact-finding when reviewing credibility-heavy verdicts)