Michael Conti v. Corporate Services Group
690 F. App'x 473
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff sued his employers for discrimination based on national origin; a jury awarded compensatory damages and found defendants liable but apportioned fault.
- Plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b) to modify the verdict to make co-defendant Leon jointly and severally liable for the full compensatory award under Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.030.
- Defendants moved under Rule 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law, arguing insufficient evidence of national-origin-based adverse actions and asserting a "same-decision" defense.
- The district court denied Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion and denied Defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion; it awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing parties as appropriate.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Rule 60(b) denial for abuse of discretion and the Rule 50(a) denial de novo; it also addressed the burden of proof for the state-law same-decision defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict should be modified to impose joint-and-several liability on Leon under Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.030 | Plaintiff argued injuries (lost wages, emotional damages) were indivisible, so joint-and-several liability should apply | Defendants argued injuries were divisible, so pro rata liability appropriate | Denied: district court did not abuse discretion; injuries found divisible, § 4.22.030 inapplicable |
| Whether sufficient evidence supported liability for discrimination on national origin (Rule 50(a)) | Plaintiff produced evidence that defendants’ justifications lacked basis and Leon knew Plaintiff’s national origin | Defendants argued plaintiff’s proof was speculative or insufficient | Affirmed: jury had ample evidence; judgment as a matter of law denied |
| Whether defendants met the same-decision affirmative defense | Plaintiff maintained defendants’ actions were motivated by discrimination | Defendants argued they would have made same decisions absent discrimination and urged a federal preponderance standard sufficed | Court affirmed denial of JMOL; jury applied federal preponderance and found same-decision, but state-law clear-and-convincing standard (Davis) was not decided by jury |
| Whether attorneys’ fees and costs award was proper | Plaintiff contested fee/cost award | Defendants supported fees and costs award | Affirmed: district court did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Toth v. Trans World Airlines, 862 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1988) (standard for Rule 60(b) abuse-of-discretion review)
- Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County, 556 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 50(a) de novo review and sufficiency-of-evidence principles)
- Griffith v. Schnitzer Steel Indus., 115 P.3d 1065 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (evidence showing employer justifications lack basis supports discrimination inference)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (plaintiff need not prove discriminatory motive by direct evidence; Title VII burden standards)
- Davis v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 615 P.2d 1279 (Wash. 1980) (state-law same-decision defense requires clear-and-convincing proof)
- Avery v. First Resolution Mgmt. Corp., 568 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate review of attorneys’ fees and costs awards)