968 F.3d 1187
10th Cir.2020Background
- Aaron Jensen, a West Jordan police officer (1996–2009), complained of sexual harassment in 2008; an IA investigation followed and he was placed on administrative leave.
- Jensen filed an EEOC/state discrimination charge in January 2009 and resigned under a settlement on April 29, 2009 for $80,000; settlement paperwork included two related documents.
- West Jordan’s internal investigation produced evidence referred to the county DA; Jensen was arrested in May 2010 on multiple charges, two dismissed for lack of probable cause at preliminary hearing and the remaining charge later dismissed with prejudice.
- Jensen sued West Jordan alleging Title VII retaliation, First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution under § 1983, and breach of contract; a jury returned a $2.77 million verdict for Jensen on all claims.
- The jury’s initial verdict failed to allocate damages among claims; the court instructed the jury post‑verdict to allocate the existing totals among claims, after which most damages were allocated to the Title VII claim.
- The district court applied Title VII’s $300,000 statutory cap (treating lost future earnings as subject to the cap) and reduced the judgment to $344,000; the court also reduced two attorneys’ requested hourly rates and denied late motions to add Lt. Shober individually.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post‑verdict instruction requiring allocation of damages | Jury’s lump sum award reflected indivisible damages; court should not have compelled allocation | Allocation was necessary to resolve an inconsistent verdict and to identify damages tied to particular claims for appeal | Court did not abuse discretion; instruction proper and jury not misled when read as a whole |
| Applicability of Title VII $300,000 cap to award | Lost future earnings are pecuniary and not subject to the 1991 Act cap | Lost future earnings and non‑economic awards are "other nonpecuniary losses" added in 1991 and thus limited | Lost future earnings and non‑economic damages here fall within category limited by §1981a; cap applies |
| Reduction of requested attorney hourly rates | Counsel submitted affidavits showing prevailing community rates ($350, $300); court should award requested rates | Trial court reasonably adjusted rates downward based on community comparators and experience | District court did not abuse discretion in awarding lower hourly rates (Hollingsworth $285; Beaton $225) |
| Denial of leave to amend to add Lt. Shober personally | Delay was attributable to prior counsel; amendment should have been permitted | Motions to add party were untimely and prejudicial so district court properly denied leave | Denial affirmed as not an abuse of discretion for undue delay and prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for JMOL: timeliness of Title VII claim | Timely acts occurred within 300‑day window (false info/withholding at preliminary hearing) | Adverse acts were consequences of earlier acts outside the window; claim is time barred | Viewing record favorably to Jensen, sufficient evidence supported timeliness; JMOL denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for municipal §1983 liability and causation | City officials (City Attorney, Chief) ratified or knew of subordinates’ retaliatory conduct; causation supports damages | No municipal policy/custom or causation shown to tie city decisionmakers to misconduct | Sufficient evidence for jury to find policy/custom and causation; verdict stands |
| Whether two settlement documents form a single agreement | Documents executed contemporaneously on same subject should be read together | One document involved the state agency while the other did not; they are separate | Under Utah law (Bullfrog), the two contemporaneous instruments are read together as one agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Caterpillar, Inc., 572 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Sorensen, 801 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2015) (evaluate instructions in light of entire record)
- Lederman v. Frontier Fire Prot., Inc., 685 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2012) (jury must not be misled by instructions)
- U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 1223 (10th Cir. 1988) (double recovery rule where single injury gives rise to multiple claims)
- Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc., 137 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1998) (lost future earnings characterized as nonpecuniary injury under 1991 Act)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (burden to justify prevailing market attorney rates)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts rule and filing windows)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2013) (but‑for causation standard)
- Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1980) (delayed consequences do not reset filing period)
- Bryson v. City of Oklahoma City, 627 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (municipal liability requires policy or custom and direct causal link)
- Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend)
- Unit Drilling Co. v. Enron Oil & Gas Co., 108 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 1997) (postverdict clarification framework)