OCASIO v. EADY
2:14-cv-00811
D.N.J.May 1, 2025Background
- Luis Ocasio, a former corrections officer and union president, alleged that he was retaliated against and constructively discharged due to union activity at the Hudson County Department of Corrections.
- Kirk Eady, Deputy Director, was accused of wiretapping and other retaliatory acts; Oscar Aviles, DOC Director, allegedly failed to act to stop Eady.
- Plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NJ Civil Rights Act, arguing that defendants were liable under Monell for failure to address and prevent Eady’s conduct.
- The first trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff against Eady, but claims against other defendants were dismissed; the dismissal was later reversed by the Third Circuit, prompting a new trial.
- After the new trial, a jury found in favor of Ocasio against Hudson County, DOC, and Aviles under Monell liability, awarding substantial damages.
- Post-trial, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law or new trial, and plaintiff moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and an increase in the award to address adverse tax consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell liability for retaliatory acts | Defendants’ inaction amounted to deliberate indifference under Monell | No evidence Aviles had knowledge or failed to supervise Eady; no basis for Monell liability | For Plaintiff; sufficient evidence for jury |
| Judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) | Jury’s verdict is supported by the record | No reasonable jury could find in Plaintiff’s favor; insufficient evidence | Denied; verdict had sufficient evidentiary basis |
| New trial due to attorney misconduct (Rule 59) | No improper influence; any issues minor and non-prejudicial | Plaintiff's counsel’s conduct unfairly influenced the jury and verdict | Denied; alleged misconduct did not affect verdict |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs, with contingency uplift | Entitled to full fee and enhancement after success in second trial | Some hours duplicative; no contingency enhancement warranted | Fees/costs granted, no enhancement |
| Increase award for adverse tax consequences | Lump sum award imposes tax burden, should be increased | (No opposition filed) | Granted; award increased |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (defines municipal liability standard for constitutional violations)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (sets standards for attorneys’ fee awards under fee-shifting statutes)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (addresses how courts should calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (municipal liability not based on respondeat superior)
- Thomas v. Independence Township, 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) (standards for First Amendment retaliation claims)
- Eshelman v. Agere Sys., Inc., 554 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2009) (approves tax gross-up for lump sum awards).