Campbell-Crane & Associates, Inc. v. Stamenkovic
44 A.3d 924
D.C.2012Background
- Stamenkovic, a 26-year-old Serbian immigrant, worked as Campbell-Crane's Director of Meeting Management and VP for International and Corporate Development, with Campbell sponsoring his visa.
- Plaintiff alleged Campbell subjected him to three years of sexual harassment, including explicit comments, propositions, and control over his personal life, creating a hostile work environment under the DCHRA.
- Plaintiff also alleged retaliation for filing suit, including events surrounding a May 12, 2005 meeting and his subsequent non-return to work.
- After a six-day trial, the jury awarded $800,000 in compensatory damages for hostile environment and $12,000 for retaliation; the court later awarded $455,739.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.
- Campbell-Crane challenged trial court rulings on jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or new trial, and the amount of attorneys' fees.
- The DC Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding one instructional error harmless and upholding the damages and fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hostile-work-environment instruction error was reversible | Stamenkovic contends error in the hostile environment instruction prejudiced the verdict. | Campbell-Crane argues error was prejudicial and not harmless given lack of subjective perception. | Harmless error; no reversible prejudice given the whole record and damages award. |
| Whether nominal damages instruction was required | Nominal damages were unnecessary because damages were properly tied to actual injury. | Nominal damages could clarify that liability does not imply large damages. | No abuse of discretion; absence of nominal damages instruction was harmless in light of $800,000 compensatory award. |
| Whether rebuttal testimony by Crane was proper | Crane’s rebuttal testimony was relevant to rebut defense witnesses and support plaintiff’s theory. | Crane’s late, inflammatory testimony should have been excluded as improper rebuttal. | No abuse of discretion; Crane testimony properly admitted to rebut other witnesses. |
| Whether exclusion of alternative causes of distress was reversible plain error | Evidence of real estate investments and other stressors could explain distress independent of harassment. | Trial court properly limited such evidence; evidence already supported harassment claim. | No plain error; trial court’s rulings did not warrant reversal given substantial harassment evidence and corroboration. |
| Whether compensatory damages were excessive | Damages were justified by psychological and physical distress from long-term harassment. | An $800,000 award was excessive given lack of physical injury and post-employment improvements. | Not excessive; damages supported by record and expert testimony; within trial court discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daka, Inc. v. Breiner, 711 A.2d 86 (D.C.1998) (elements of hostile environment under the DCHRA; objective and subjective standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993) (subjective perception required for actionable harassment under Title VII concepts)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1998) (comprehensive framework for hostile environment claims)
- Lively v. Flexible Packaging Ass'n, 830 A.2d 874 (D.C.2003) (definition of hostile workplace environment in DC case law)
- Green v. United States, 948 A.2d 554 (D.C.2008) (link between subjective perception and altered terms of employment)
- Taylor v. United States, 866 A.2d 817 (D.C.2005) (standard for damages and causation in DC matters)
- Finkelstein v. District of Columbia, 593 A.2d 591 (D.C.1991) (deferential review of new-trial decisions; standard for abuse of discretion)