James Trickey v. Kaman Industrial Technologies
705 F.3d 788
8th Cir.2013Background
- Trickey, age 57, was hired by Kaman in 2000 as a Cape Girardeau branch manager; Caputo supervised Trickey and Higgins mentored by Caputo.
- In 2007 Caputo claimed the average management age was 59 and urged replacement; Trickey was later put on a Performance Improvement Plan.
- Trickey disputed Caputo's criticisms in a January 2008 rebuttal; Caputo reduced Trickey further after a PIP, and Trickey was demoted in February 2008 to PAM with an inflated sales target.
- From 2008–2010, Trickey faced ongoing scrutiny, surveillance, and alleged retaliatory actions after he complained of age discrimination and retaliation.
- Trickey filed suit in 2009; a jury awarded him damages for age discrimination and retaliation, plus $500,000 punitive damages; district court awarded fees at the Cape Girardeau rate.
- Kaman appealed, challenging punitive damages, due process, and trial rulings; Trickey cross-appealed on attorneys’ fees timing and rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punitive damages sufficiency | Trickey: clear and convincing showing of evil motive exists. | Kaman: no clear and convincing evidence; punitive standard not met. | Submissible; evidence supports evil motive or reckless indifference. |
| Due process and punitive-damages ratio | Ratio and reprehensibility support due-process compliance. | Ratio too high; conduct not sufficiently reprehensible. | 5:1 ratio within constitutional limits; not shockingly excessive. |
| New-trial on discrimination/retaliation claims | District court erred on hearsay and credibility evaluation. | Hearsay and trial rulings prejudicial; new trial warranted. | No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Hearsay evidence of Caputo statements | Testimony about Caputo’s statements properly admitted as party admission/or permissible. | Hearsay; improper without proper exception. | Not reversible error; admission not prejudicial. |
| Attorneys' fees rate | St. Louis rates should apply given complex nature and counsel's location. | Cape Girardeau rates appropriate; district court within discretion. | Cape Girardeau rate affirmed; Rule 59(e) not appropriate vehicle for fee reallocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilliland v. Mo. Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. 2009) (punitive damages require clear and convincing proof of evil motive)
- Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (circumstantial evidence permissible for punitive damages; abuse of discretion standard)
- Drury v. Mo. Youth Soccer Ass'n, 259 S.W.3d 558 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (evil motive may be inferred from reckless disregard)
- Claus v. Intrigue Hotels, LLC, 328 S.W.3d 777 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (circumstantial evidence for punitive damages; no bar to MHRA evidence overlap)
- Gore v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (guideposts for due-process review of punitive damages; reprehensibility, ratio, penalties)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (ratio considerations; four-to-one often near constitutional line)
- Morse v. S. Union Co., 174 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 1999) (court upholds large punitive awards where justified by evidence)
- Ondrisek v. Hoffman, 698 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2012) (courts assess punitive-damages with Gore framework; include Smith factors)
- Denesha v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 161 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 1998) (deterrence role of punitive damages in employment discrimination)
- EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 1998) (evidence and punitive-damages considerations in discrimination cases)
- Kim v. Nash Finch Co., 123 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 1997) (historical punitive-damages awards in circuit precedent)