Diane T. Gowski, M.D. v. James Peake
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11245
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gowski and Zachariah, physicians at Bay Pines VA hospital, alleged retaliation and retaliatory hostile work environment after EEO complaints; Lin, Patel, and Van Buskirk were supervisors implicated in a scheme to target complainants; discrete retaliatory acts included reassignments, privilege restrictions, reprimands, investigations, and discipline; evidence showed a broader scheme to deter protected activity and intimidate staff; district court allowed retaliation and hostile environment claims to go to trial and issued injunctive relief; jury found retaliation and hostile environment and awarded damages; district court and appellate court faced rulings on sufficiency of evidence, damages, and equitable relief; the Eleventh Circuit ultimately recognized retaliatory hostile environment and remanded in part with adjustments to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retaliatory hostile work environment is cognizable in the Eleventh Circuit | Gowski seeks recognition of retaliatory hostile environment | Secretary argues no such claim in this circuit | Yes, recognized in the Eleventh Circuit |
| Whether evidence supports a hostile environment via retaliatory animus | Discrete acts cumulatively created a severe, pervasive environment | Discretionary acts insufficient individually and causally linked to protected activity | Sufficient evidence for hostile environment via cumulative acts |
| Whether injunctive relief was proper given mixed-motive retaliation | Relief tailored to address retaliation scheme | Injunctive relief limited when mixed motive; broad relief not available | Partially affirmed; vacated/remanded as to certain provisions which targeted discrete acts not recoverable under mixed-motive framework |
| Whether damages and remittitur were properly awarded or remitted | Damages supported by evidence; cap applied appropriately | Lost wages improper; cap on emotional distress; remittitur warranted | Remittitur upheld; lost wages vacated; damages otherwise affirmed; fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (discrete acts cannot alone form hostile environment claim; but may be considered together)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1993) (establishes standard for hostile work environment severity and pervasiveness)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court, 2000) (credibility and jury determinations given deference)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2005) (recognition of retaliatory hostile environment in other circuits)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2002) (hostile environment requires a series of acts; can include discrete actions in aggregate)