979 F.3d 101
2d Cir.2020Background:
- Patricia Watson, a corrections officer at Ulster County Jail (2000–2010), joined a 2009 suit with three other female officers alleging a sexually hostile work environment.
- Trial evidence showed pervasive pornography, vulgar screensavers, sexual comments and touching by male officers, and two particular harassing incidents by Officer Kevin Divorl that Watson formally reported.
- A 2014 jury found for Watson on both Title VII and § 1983 hostile-work-environment claims, awarding $200,000 on each claim (total $400,000).
- The County filed post-trial Rule 50(b)/59(b) motions after a district-court-posed extension; the district court initially denied them as untimely under Rule 6(b)(2); this Court in Legg I held Rule 6(b)(2) is claim-processing and remanded to consider waiver/forfeiture.
- On remand the district court found Watson forfeited her timeliness objection, reduced Watson’s Title VII award to $75,000 via remittitur (which Watson accepted), and entered JMOL for the County on Watson’s § 1983 claim for lack of Monell proof.
- On appeal the Second Circuit affirmed the Title VII judgment, held Watson’s remittitur acceptance did not bar appeal of the § 1983 claim, vacated the § 1983 JMOL, and remanded to reinstate the jury verdict and consider remittitur for § 1983 damages.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watson forfeited/waived objection to the County’s untimely post-trial motions | Watson: district court lacked authority to consider untimely motions; she did not validly waive objection | County: Watson acquiesced to the court’s proposed extension and therefore forfeited objection | Court: Watson forfeited by failing to object contemporaneously to the court’s in-court extension proposal; district court properly considered the motions on the merits |
| Whether accepting remittitur on Title VII claim bars appeal of § 1983 claim | Watson: remittitur acceptance does not preclude appeal of a separate § 1983 claim that requires different elements | County: acceptance of remittitur forecloses appellate review of the judgment | Court: remittitur on one claim does not bar appeal of a separate and distinct claim (§ 1983 here is separate due to Monell requirement) |
| Whether JMOL for the County on Title VII hostile-work-environment claim was appropriate | Watson: evidence (pornography, comments, Divorl incidents, supervisors’ inaction) sufficed for a reasonable jury | County: evidence insufficient as a matter of law; employer not liable for non‑supervisor harassment without adequate notice/remedial failure | Court: affirmed denial of JMOL; jury had legally sufficient basis to find a hostile work environment and employer liability under Title VII |
| Whether JMOL for the County on § 1983 Monell claim was appropriate | Watson: municipal liability supported by pervasive pornography, supervisors’ acquiescence, and failure to remediate Divorl incidents | County: evidence did not show a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference sufficient for Monell liability | Court: vacated JMOL; reasonable jury could have found municipal involvement from the pervasive sexualized environment and supervisory acquiescence; reinstated jury verdict on § 1983 and remanded on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Legg v. Ulster County, 820 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2016) (Rule 6(b)(2) is a claim‑processing rule subject to waiver/forfeiture)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (claim‑processing rules can be forfeited by failure to timely assert them)
- Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 429 U.S. 648 (plaintiff cannot appeal a remittitur order she agreed to)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (standards for reviewing JMOL; disregard evidence the jury is not required to believe)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (hostile work environment elements under Title VII)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (presence of workplace pornography can help establish a hostile environment)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (contrast: insufficient core harassment for hostile environment)
- Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411 (new‑trial standard; jury verdicts disturbed rarely)