971 F.3d 380
2d Cir.2020Background
- Emamian, an Iranian-born neuroscientist who wears a headscarf, worked in Paul Greengard’s lab at Rockefeller University (2004–2007) and alleged repeated mistreatment and exclusion she attributed to race/national origin and religion; HR investigated and found no discrimination.
- She was denied reappointment in 2007, experienced significant psychiatric injury, sued under NYCHRL (intentional discrimination) and related claims, and went to trial in Jan–Feb 2018.
- After a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict finding discrimination based on race/national origin, awarding $250,000 back pay and $2,000,000 emotional distress; the court later ordered retrial on emotional distress unless remitted to $200,000, and final judgment entered for $250,000 + $200,000.
- On appeal Emamian argued the court erred by not instructing the jury on punitive damages; Rockefeller cross-appealed, challenging the jury instructions/verdict form and the court’s decision to recall a just-discharged jury to correct an asserted mistake on the verdict form.
- The jury’s initial verdict form had an apparent inconsistency (checked race/national origin but marked “No” to whether discrimination was proved) and, immediately after discharge, the jury foreperson told the deputy the jury had made a mistake; the court rescinded discharge, sent jurors back briefly, they corrected the form, and the court read the corrected verdict.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: plaintiff waived the punitive-damages objection (plain-error review failed), and the court found no prejudicial error in the charge or verdict form and no abuse of discretion in recalling the jury or in the timing of re-empanelment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct on punitive damages | Emamian: court should have given punitive-damages instruction under Chauca because evidence supported willful/reckless conduct | Rockefeller: no error; plaintiff waived any charge request; punitive damages not warranted | Waived for failure to object at charge conference; plain-error review fails — evidence insufficient to show punitive-damage inquiry was "core" to the trial. |
| Sufficiency/clarity of NYCHRL intent instruction | Emamian: instruction adequate (she prevailed below) | Rockefeller: charge misstated law, omitting requirement that unlawful discrimination be a motivating factor | Court read NYCHRL text and Mihalik standard; intent requirement was adequately and explicitly instructed; no reversible error. |
| Verdict form design (ordering / lack of "none" option) | Emamian: form permitted jury to indicate protected status and intent; no prejudice | Rockefeller: form biased by listing protected classes without a selectable "none" and ordering forced finding before intent | Any objection was waived; "if any" language and jury’s blank answers elsewhere show jury knew how to indicate "none"; no prejudice and no abuse of discretion. |
| Power to recall discharged jury to correct verdict | Emamian: court properly rescinded discharge after jury promptly reported a mistake | Rockefeller: rescission improper unless form showed facial inconsistency; recall risked juror contamination | Dietz permits limited inherent power to rescind; here jurors immediately reported an error, factors (delay, contacts, reactions, phone use) showed minimal risk of outside influence; recall was proper. |
| Re-empanelment timing and validity of second verdict | Emamian: jurors remained the same and court promptly restored status | Rockefeller: court failed to re-empanel before jurors completed corrected form, so they weren’t a valid empaneled jury | Dietz rejects "magic words" discharge theory; court’s statements and the jurors’ immediate presence sufficed; no timely-objection was made and no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016) (district courts have limited inherent power to rescind jury discharge to correct verdict errors and must weigh prejudice factors)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (explaining NYCHRL intentional-discrimination standard: plaintiff must show she was treated less well at least in part because of a protected trait)
- Chauca v. Abraham, 30 N.Y.3d 325 (N.Y. 2017) (punitive damages permissible under NYCHRL for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct)
- Rasanen v. Doe, 723 F.3d 325 (2d Cir. 2013) (plain-error exception to Rule 51 in civil cases is narrow)
- Pescatore v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 97 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 1996) (plain-error review for failure to object to jury instructions should be invoked with extreme caution)
- Caruso v. Forslund, 47 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995) (objection to jury instructions must be made on the record to preserve error)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts have inherent authority to manage affairs to ensure orderly disposition of cases)
- Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2004) (courts should be cautious about accepting jury changes that may reflect attempts to reach a particular legal outcome)