May v. Chrysler Group, LLC
716 F.3d 963
7th Cir.2012Background
- May, an assembly plant pipefitter at Chrysler’s Belvidere facility, was subjected to pervasive racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and homophobic graffiti and death threats from 2002–2005.
- Harassment included graffiti, threats, vandalism to May’s property, and a dead bird display; Chrysler undertook some internal actions but did not identify the harasser.
- Chrysler’s response consisted of HR meetings, incident documentation, gate-ring record analysis, and later handwriting analysis; no one at Chrysler interviewed May’s suspects.
- May sued Chrysler in 2002 under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; only the hostile work environment claim went to trial.
- The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages; the district court remitted compensatory damages and vacated punitive damages; on appeal the court affirmed liability but vacated the punitive damages and upheld the grant of judgment on punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chrysler is liable for a hostile work environment | May | Chrysler | Chrysler liable |
| Whether Chrysler’s actions were reasonably calculated to end harassment | Chrysler failed to promptly stop harassment | Chrysler took some steps but not enough | Not reasonably calculated to end harassment |
| Whether punitive damages were warranted | Jury could find malice or reckless indifference | No reckless disregard; actions were in good faith | Punitive damages not warranted |
| Whether the district court correctly granted JMOL on punitive damages | Evidence supported punitive verdict | Evidence insufficient | Affirmed judgment on liability; vacated punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Waste Mgmt., 361 F.3d 1021 (7th Cir. 2004) (standard for hostile environment liability and employer response)
- Mason v. S. Ill. Univ., 233 F.3d 1036 (7th Cir. 2000) (harassment standards and employer liability)
- Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 632 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness of employer response required)
- Porter v. Erie Foods Int’l, Inc., 576 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of remedial actions depends on circumstances)
- McKenzie v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 92 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996) (facts and circumstances matter in evaluating response)
- Cerros v. Steel Techs., Inc., 398 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2005) (efficacy of remedial action relevant to liability)
- Ekstrand v. Sch. Dist. of Somerset, 683 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for Rule 50(b) JMOL review)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) ( Guidance on standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Von der Ruhr v. Immtech Int'l, Inc., 570 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2009) (evidentiary standard for appellate review of jury verdicts)
- Hertzberg v. SRAM Corp., 261 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (punitive damages and good-faith efforts under Title VII)
- Bruso v. United Airlines, Inc., 239 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2001) (limits on punitive damages and intentional disregard)
- Wyninger v. New Venture Gear, Inc., 361 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2004) (case recognizing employer liability framework)