Carleen Black v. Pan American Laboratories
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14167
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Black, a former Pamlab sales representative, alleged Title VII and TCHRA discrimination and retaliation claims based on sex, including a discriminatory sales quota, termination, and retaliation.
- Jury awarded $600,000 in compensatory damages and $2.4 million in punitive damages, plus $150,000 back pay for the quota claim and $150,000 back pay for termination/retaliation, with double recovery addressed by the district court.
- District court reduced total compensatory and punitive damages to $200,000 under Title VII’s cap and remitted back-pay amounts to avoid double recovery, then remanded the quota back-pay calculation for recalculation.
- Pamlab appealed challenging liability on quota, termination, and retaliation, arguing insufficient evidence for damages and back pay; Black cross-appealed the CAP application as improper and asked for per-claim cap.
- The panel held the quota verdict supported under Disparate Treatment theory, affirmed liability on termination, and upheld the damages cap per party, but remanded back-pay calculation for the quota claim; the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination discrimination | Black showed sex-based discriminatory animus among decisionmakers. | Pamlab contends evidence did not support the termination decision as discriminatory. | Yes; ample evidence supported discrimination. |
| Validity of quota claim theories | Disparate Treatment theory proven; zero/quota theories argued but not pursued at trial. | Only Disparate Treatment theory supported; zero/quota not viable. | Disparate Treatment supported; zero/quota theories not pursued/waived; quota verdict sustained. |
| Application of Title VII damages cap | Cap should apply per claim; could recover more by treating claims separately. | Cap applies per party, not per claim; total cap limited damages. | Cap applies per party; remand for back-pay recalculation; overall cap applied to total damages. |
| Back pay recalculation on quota claim | Back pay should reflect what Black would have earned with Livingston’s quota or zero quota. | District court calculation based on quota assumptions. | Remand for recalculation of back pay on quota claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (requires showing prima facie case plus falsity of employer's explanation to prove discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for prima facie case and burden-shifting in discrimination)
- Burdine v. Texas Dep’t of Commun. Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (prohibits reliance on mere presumption; defines post-pretext burden)
- Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193 (6th Cir. 1997) (cap per party in Title VII damages applied per party)
- Fogg v. Ashcroft, 254 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (cap applies per party; per-claim approach avoided)
- Smith v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 165 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir. 1999) (cap applies per party; per-suit approach)