Gratton v. United Parcel Service Inc, 1:22-cv-03149

Plaintiff, an African-American UPS driver, alleged workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, filing numerous grievances and an EEOC complaint after his transfer to the Yakima center.
Plaintiff was terminated following an internal UPS investigation of an incident involving alleged unwanted physical contact with a supervisor; the investigation was led by a security supervisor (Wiedenmeyer) and the termination decision made by Labor Manager Karl Leyert.
A jury awarded Plaintiff $39.6 million in emotional damages and $198 million in punitive damages, finding violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Washington Law Against Discrimination, and public policy.
Defendant UPS filed motions challenging the punitive damages award, contending no evidence showed senior management acted with malice or reckless indifference as required under federal law for punitive damages.
The Court addressed whether punitive damages were properly awarded, the propriety of equitable remedies including reinstatement and back pay, and Defendant's post-trial motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UPS acted with malice/reckless indifference to support punitive damages under § 1981a	Leyert ignored grievances, pre-drafted letter shows predetermination, biased managers influenced decision (cat's paw theory)	No evidence of malice or reckless indifference; Leyert followed standard procedures, neutral investigator used	No sufficient evidence of malice or reckless indifference; punitive damages vacated
Liability for punitive damages under cat’s paw theory	Fromherz and Loomis influenced termination via biased actions, thus imputing retaliatory animus to Leyert/UPS	No proof that final decision-maker Leyert was improperly influenced or that process wasn’t independent	No evidence biased subordinates influenced independent investigation
Entitlement to equitable remedies (reinstatement, back pay, etc.)	Should be reinstated with back pay and benefits, injunction against future violations, other broad equitable relief	Remedies at law (money, damages) sufficient; reinstatement not practicable due to animosity	Reinstatement and back pay denied; injunction request overbroad and denied
Emotional damages award	Not directly contested in post-trial motions	No challenge made to emotional damages verdict at this time	$39.6 million emotional damages verdict stands

E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing Rule 50 motions and standard)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard for judgment as a matter of law)
Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2001) (definition of substantial evidence in Rule 50 context)
Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (standard for punitive damages in employment discrimination)
Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prod., Inc., 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirmative defense to punitive damages for good faith compliance policies)
Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2001) (good faith defense unavailable if reporting employee fails to act)
Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) (cat’s paw liability in discrimination)
Bergene v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, 272 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (manager’s retaliatory motive imputed to company if involved in decision)
Gotthardt v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 191 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 1999) (calculation of back pay in discrimination cases)
Traxler v. Multnomah Cnty., 596 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (equitable factors in reinstatement/front pay)
Martini v. Boeing Co., 137 Wash. 2d 357 (1999) (scope of "actual damages" and equitable remedies under WLAD)