46 A.3d 1101
D.C.2012Background
- Ivey sued the District of Columbia for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the DCHRA, and the ADA; summary judgment was granted to the District but reversed in part on appeal, leading to a trial in November 2009.
- At trial, the jury returned a partial verdict in Ivey’s favor but awarded only nominal damages.
- Ivey sought a new trial on damages, contending the court abused its discretion by failing to reinstruct on compensatory damages after a jury note.
- The jury was instructed with mixed standard damages instructions, including guidance that damages must be proven with reasonable certainty and that no exact monetary value is required for intangible harms.
- During deliberations, the jury sent a note requesting additional guidance on damages; the court reread instructions but did not provide new, substantive guidance, and later informed counsel that the existing instructions already covered damages.
- The court ultimately affirmed the judgment, concluding the lack of a record showing compensable injury rendered any error harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstruction on compensatory damages was an abuse of discretion. | Ivey argues the note showed confusion requiring supplemental guidance. | District contends rereading the instructions was sufficient. | No reversible error; harms not shown due to insufficient record evidence of damages. |
| Whether evidentiary rulings were reversible errors affecting damages. | Ivey asserts several evidentiary exclusions and admissions harmed her damages case. | District claims errors were harmless and not prejudicial. | Harmless error; no substantial prejudice shown given the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 (1931) (damages may be inferred when exact amount cannot be proven with certainty)
- Graham v. United States, 703 A.2d 825 (D.C.1997) (discretion to reinstruct; need concrete accuracy to jury's question)
- Alcindore v. United States, 818 A.2d 152 (D.C.2003) (jury questions after instruction require appropriate response)
- Whitaker v. United States, 617 A.2d 499 (D.C.1992) (jury confusion requires non-reflexive guidance beyond mere rereading of instructions)
- Psychiatric Inst. of Washington v. District of Columbia Comm'n on Human Rights, 871 A.2d 1146 (D.C.2005) (helps define proper damages guidance for non-monetary harms)