897 F.3d 1272
10th Cir.2018Background
- Marcia Eisenhour worked 24 years as court administrator for Weber County Justice Court and complained in 2008 about sexual harassment by Judge Craig Storey; Judicial Conduct Commission found no misconduct.
- Eisenhour went public in 2009; press reported her allegations. Months later three county commissioners voted to close the Justice Court, which ultimately left Eisenhour jobless.
- Eisenhour sued Storey, Weber County, and the three commissioners under § 1983 (equal protection/sexual harassment and First Amendment retaliation) and brought a Utah Whistleblower Act claim against the County.
- On prior appeal this Court reversed summary judgment as to Storey (equal-protection harassment) and as to County/commissioners (First Amendment retaliation) and remanded; trial followed.
- First trial: jury found for Eisenhour on the equal-protection claim vs. Storey and on the whistleblower claim vs. County, but found against her on First Amendment retaliation. District court granted new trials; retrial resulted in judgment as a matter of law for commissioners and verdicts for County.
- Parties appealed; this opinion affirms most rulings but reverses dismissal of punitive damages against Storey and remands for a new trial limited to punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for equal-protection (hostile work environment) against Storey | Eisenhour argues Storey's physical contact, erotic poem, possessive conduct and leave restrictions were severe/pervasive and support a hostile-work-environment § 1983 claim | Storey says evidence was insufficient; coworkers did not find his conduct severe and blamed Eisenhour for the office atmosphere | Affirmed—jury reasonably could find Storey's conduct created an objectively hostile work environment; viewing record, verdict stands |
| Admissibility of Storey’s erotic poem | Eisenhour: poem probative of motive and intent, supports harassment claim | Storey: poem irrelevant, timing uncertain, and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Affirmed—poem relevant to motive and intent; district court did not abuse discretion on relevance/403; date-for-jury issue permissible under Rule 104(b) |
| Disqualification of trial judge after first-trial verdict | Eisenhour: judge Waddoups’ remark reserving right to set aside jury verdict showed bias requiring recusal | Defendants: remark was not disqualifying; judge merely expressed doubt on close legal question | Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; comment insufficient to establish bias; Liteky principle applies |
| Evidentiary rulings at second trial (cumulative claim) | Eisenhour: cumulative rulings deprived her of fair trial | County: rulings proper; appellant failed to show specific error | Affirmed—Eisenhour inadequately briefed/identified specific errors; argument waived |
| Liability of commissioners after JMOL at retrial | Eisenhour: commissioners should have gone to jury on retaliation claim | Commissioners: JMOL proper; County verdict forecloses individual liability | Affirmed (harmless if error)—jury verdict for County that no adverse action occurred is inconsistent with commissioner liability; any error harmless |
| Economic damages causation (lost wages) against Storey | Eisenhour: Storey’s harassment set in motion chain causing court closure and job loss | Storey: closure was caused by intervening, unforeseeable decisions (Commission), so proximate causation fails | Affirmed JMOL for Storey—no reasonable basis to find closure was a reasonably foreseeable proximate consequence of Storey’s misconduct |
| Punitive damages against Storey | Eisenhour: Storey’s conduct showed reckless or callous indifference to federal rights, supporting punitive damages | Storey: no evidence he acted with evil motive or knew his conduct violated federal law | Reversed—sufficient evidence (Storey was a judge, had training, and engaged in physical assaults) to let jury decide punitive damages; remand for new trial limited to that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boeing Co., 825 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Deters v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 202 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2000) (Rule 403 balancing guidance)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings ordinarily not a basis for bias recusal)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (summary judgment standard mirrors JMOL standard)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (proximate causation and foreseeability in retaliation contexts)
- Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2006) (proximate causation principles for § 1983 damages)
- Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (punitive damages standard in § 1983 cases)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (mental-state standard for punitive damages; must act despite perceived risk of violating federal law)