779 F.3d 547
8th Cir.2015Background
- Ray Nassar (superintendent) and Gena Smith (business manager) — both white — were hired by Hughes School District; Nassar’s three-year contract ran from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013.
- After the school board became majority African-American, relations soured; board member Earnestine Jackson made public derogatory remarks and the district fired Nassar (Feb 8, 2011) and later Smith — both without hearings.
- Nassar and Smith sued the district, Jackson, and others for violations of procedural due process, racial discrimination, breach of contract, and defamation; the district court granted partial summary judgment on due-process claims and reserved other claims for trial.
- At trial an economist quantified past and future losses; past lost salary/benefits to trial = ~$195,639.38; additional contract-term loss to trial-end ≈ $50,000; present value of seven years’ future losses ≈ $283,577.77.
- The jury found for plaintiffs on all claims and awarded Nassar $340,000 on the due-process claim (exceeding the demonstrated contract-term loss), nominal awards on other claims; defendants renewed Rule 50(b) motion and sought reduction or new trial; plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees and the district court awarded fees using an enhanced hourly rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of challenges via Rule 50(b) | Nassar/Smith: defendants’ general Rule 50(a) motion preserved issues | District/Jackson: later-specified Rule 50(b) argued insufficiency of discrimination evidence | Court: defendants waived discrimination and defamation challenges because Rule 50(a) lacked required specificity; issues not preserved for appeal |
| Sufficiency of evidence on racial discrimination | Plaintiffs: evidence supported jury finding of discrimination | Defendants: insufficient evidence to sustain discrimination verdict | Court: waived by defendants on appeal; not considered on merits |
| Scope of due-process damages (award $340,000) | Nassar: award can include future losses/front pay and present-value estimates justify amount | Defendants: damages should be limited to demonstrated contract-term salary/benefits (~$245,639.38) | Court: jury improperly awarded front pay (equitable remedy for court); vacated excessive $340,000, ordered remittitur to contract-term amount or new trial on damages |
| Attorney’s fees and enhancement | Plaintiffs: requested fee consistent with contingency (seeking higher effective rate) | Defendants: district court improperly enhanced fee due to contingency and relied on block-billed entries | Court: affirmed fee award (enhancement justified by attorney’s skill/experience, not solely contingency), but remanded fee reconsideration in light of reduced damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham Constr. Servs. v. Hammer & Steel Inc., 755 F.3d 611 (8th Cir.) (Rule 50(b) limited to grounds asserted in Rule 50(a))
- Alternate Fuels, Inc. v. Cabanas, 538 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 50(a) must specify legal and factual basis; vague motions inadequate)
- Newhouse v. McCormick & Co., Inc., 110 F.3d 635 (8th Cir.) (front pay is an equitable remedy awarded by the court, not jury)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (factors for calculating reasonable attorney’s fees; results obtained relevant)
- Racicky v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 328 F.3d 389 (8th Cir.) (remittitur procedure when jury award exceeds evidence)
- H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d 257 (8th Cir.) (inadequate billing documentation may warrant fee reduction)