Howard University v. Wilkins
22 A.3d 774
D.C.2011Background
- Wilkins sued Howard University for retaliation under the DCHRA and defamation arising from a termination.
- Jury found retaliation and awarded $1 compensatory and $42,677.50 punitive damages for intentional conduct.
- Trial court denied Howard's post-trial motions; Wilkins sought reinstatement as equitable relief.
- Howard argued punitive award was constitutionally excessive and sought remittitur; trial court rejected.
- Defamation claim was dismissed at summary judgment based on a qualified privilege; Wilkins challenged the privilege.
- On appeal, court affirmed trial court: no reversible error on punitive damages, privilege, or reinstatement issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are punitive damages constitutionally excessive? | Wilkins argues the award is proper given egregious conduct and deterrence needs. | Howard contends the award is grossly excessive and violates due process. | Punitive award upheld; not constitutionally excessive under Gore guideposts. |
| Was remittitur appropriate for the punitive award? | Wilkins contends no remittitur needed given egregious conduct and deterrence. | Howard asserts remittitur required to align with due process. | No remittitur required; ratio and third Gore guidepost supported by record. |
| Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment on defamation due to qualified privilege? | Wilkins claims no privilege or abuse of privilege by publication. | Howard asserts statements were privileged and published within common interest. | Yes; qualified privilege applied, summary judgment proper. |
| Was reinstatement an appropriate remedy? | Wilkins seeks reinstatement after retaliation verdict. | Howard argues reinstatement impractical due to disability and animosity. | Reinstatement denied; court within discretion given disability and hostility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 2001) (three Gore guideposts guide excessiveness review)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court, 2003) (gore guidepost framework for due process)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (Supreme Court, 1996) (three guideposts for punitive damages)
- Modern Mgmt. Co. v. Wilson, 997 A.2d 37 (D.C. 2010) (punitive damages require egregious conduct and mind state)
- Daka, Inc. v. McCrae, 839 A.2d 682 (D.C. 2003) (deterrence rationale for punitive awards under DCHRA)
- Daka, Inc. v. Breiner, 711 A.2d 86 (D.C. 1998) (considerations for deterrence and caps under Title VII/CB)
- Breiner, 711 A.2d 88 (D.C. 1998) (comparable case supporting Breiner approach to deterrence)
- Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Virginia, 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008) (ratio considerations in punitive damages context)
- Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011 (D.C. 1990) (common-interest privilege and malice standards)
- Abner v. Kansas City S.R.R. Co., 513 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2008) (deterrence rationale in punitive damages)
- Guilford Transp. Indus., Inc. v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580 (D.C. 2000) (summary judgment standard and standard of review)