Christopher Zamora v. City of Houston
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14583
5th Cir.2015Background
- Zamora, a Houston police officer, sued the City for Title VII retaliation after his 2008 suspension was allegedly retaliatory for his father Manuel's protected activity.
- During discovery Zamora’s CRU supervisors were questioned; Internal Affairs concluded Zamora violated policies, not the supervisors, and recommended Zamora’s discipline.
- An arbitrator later overturned Zamora’s suspension on the merits, and on remand the district court allowed trial with updated retaliation theories after Nassar clarified the standard.
- The jury found the City retaliated and awarded Zamora past and future compensatory damages; the district court vacated only the future damages award.
- During deliberations after the second trial, jurors discovered chalkboard notes from the first trial; the district court conducted interviews and denied a mistrial/new trial.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed liability and past damages, reversed as to vacatur of future damages, and affirmed denial of a mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| viability of cat's paw post-Nassar | Zamora argues cat's paw remains viable after Nassar. | City contends cat's paw is no longer viable for but-for causation in retaliation claims. | Cat's paw remains viable in Title VII retaliation cases. |
| causation under cat's paw | CRU supervisors’ retaliatory statements caused the suspension. | Disciplinary action based on non-retaliatory conclusions; statements were not but-for cause. | Sufficient evidence showed the supervisors’ retaliatory acts were the but-for cause of the suspension. |
| future compensatory damages for reputational harm | Evidence supported future reputational harm and related damages. | Award was not adequately supported; remittitur warranted. | District court abused discretionvacating future damages; remand for remittitur to allocate damages to reputational harm only. |
| mistrial due to jury notes from prior trial | No mistrial required; notes did not taint current jury. | Notes could taint deliberations; mistrial or new trial warranted. | District court did not abuse discretion; no mistrial or new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2011) (cat's paw causation in employment claims; but-for standard guidance)
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation claims)
- Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (U.S. 2011) (establishes but-for standard in retaliation context)
- Holliday v. Commonwealth Brands, Inc., 483 F. App’x 917 (5th Cir. 2012) (discusses cat's paw uncertainty in certain contexts)
- EEOC v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 537 F. App’x 437 (5th Cir. 2013) (applies cat's paw analysis in but-for causation post-Nassar context)
- Manning v. Chevron Chemical Co., 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2003) (knowledge of protected activity as part of causation proof)
- Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity as evidence; prima facie framework considerations)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2011) (endorses cat's paw within motivating-factor context)