Climent-García v. Autoridad De Transporte Marítimo Y Las Islas Municipio, 754 F.3d 17

Laura Climent‑García was an MTA Operations Supervisor who served briefly as Interim Assistant Manager at the Fajardo ferry terminal; she alleges sex discrimination in adverse action and a failure to hire.
As Interim Assistant Manager, Climent was given office space offsite and was frequently directed to stay away from the terminal, reducing her operational duties compared to her (male) predecessor. She experienced hostile treatment from Executive Director Cirino.
Climent was not selected for an interim Maritime Transport Administrator position in San Juan; MTA appointed Stanley Mulero instead, who earned a higher salary and was ineligible for overtime.
Climent sued under Title VII and Puerto Rico Law No. 100; a jury found for Climent on both adverse action and failure-to-hire claims, awarding $50,000 (compensatory) and $95,750 (back pay). The district court doubled damages under Law 100, entering judgment for $291,500.
The MTA moved for JMOL at trial but did not renew the Rule 50(b) post‑verdict motion; it filed a Rule 59(e) motion seeking remittitur of damages, which the district court denied. The MTA appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for adverse employment action	Climent argued facts supported jury finding that she suffered discriminatory adverse action while Interim Assistant Manager.	MTA argued no reasonable jury could find adverse action based on the record.	Not reviewed on appeal — MTA failed to renew Rule 50(b) post‑verdict, so sufficiency challenge is unpreserved.
Sufficiency of evidence for failure to hire	Climent argued the San Juan appointment of Mulero over her showed discriminatory failure to hire.	MTA argued no reasonable jury could find failure to hire; position was interim and limited.	Not reviewed for same preservation reason as above.
Remittitur of back pay award ($95,750) and accounting for overtime/duration	Climent argued the back pay award was supported by reasonable inferences from salary differences and lack of evidence limiting the interim post.	MTA argued back pay should be limited to 14 months (duration suggested by Mulero's testimony) and offset by Climent’s overtime earnings.	Court affirmed denial of remittitur: record lacked evidence that the interim post ended at 14 months and MTA presented insufficient trial evidence (no pay stubs) to offset overtime; award was not irrational.

Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift‑Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2006) (failure to renew Rule 50(b) bars appellate sufficiency review)
Fed. Ins. Co. v. HPSC, Inc., 480 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2007) (Rule 50(b) preservation requirement explained)
Hammond v. T.J. Litle & Co., 82 F.3d 1166 (1st Cir. 1996) (appellate sufficiency review requires district court motion renewal)
Jusino v. Zayas, 875 F.2d 986 (1st Cir. 1989) (Rule 59 motion not substituting for Rule 50(b) unless a Rule 59(a) new‑trial motion challenges sufficiency)
Trainor v. HEI Hospitality, LLC, 699 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2012) (district court’s remittitur denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Wortley v. Camplin, 333 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 2003) (remittitur standard: award must exceed any rational appraisal from the evidence to warrant reduction)
Koster v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (noneconomic damages remittitur standard and need for firm evidence on back pay)
Selgas v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 104 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1997) (back pay should make plaintiff whole; award tailored to case facts)
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1975) (back pay intended to compensate and make plaintiff whole)