Rene Bolduc v. icwusa.com, Inc.
679 F. App'x 630
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rene “Sonny” Bolduc sued ICWUSA in 2013 alleging Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim (including demotion/termination theories).
- The case went to jury trial; the jury found for ICWUSA on all claims.
- Bolduc moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for a new trial; the district court denied both motions.
- On appeal Bolduc challenged: (1) the verdict form’s omission of a demotion-based retaliation question, (2) the use of a “but-for” phrasing instead of a “substantial factor” causation standard on the verdict form, and (3) the denial of JMOL/new trial on the hostile work environment claim.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether any instructional/verdict-form error was preserved or harmless and whether the evidence sustained the jury’s hostile-environment verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verdict form omitted demotion-based retaliation question | Verdict form should have asked whether ICWUSA demoted Bolduc in retaliation for filing a workers’ comp claim | Verdict form matched the jury instructions; no preserved error and wording Bolduc preferred would conflict with instructions | Affirmed — no reversible error; any error harmless given instructions and evidence |
| Causation standard on verdict form (but-for vs. substantial factor) | Verdict form used "but-for" test, not the Oregon "substantial factor" test | Jury instructions used substantial-factor standard; verdict form read with instructions encompassed that test | Affirmed — no reversible error; Oregon courts sometimes equate substantial-factor with but-for |
| JMOL/new trial on hostile work environment | Evidence required judgment for Bolduc; jury verdict unreasonable | Evidence supported employer: testimony characterized conduct as jokes/horseplay; contrary evidence about Bolduc's credibility and causes of his emotional distress | Affirmed — more than one reasonable conclusion; denial of JMOL and new trial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.) (failure to raise argument waives it on appeal)
- United States v. 20832 Big Rock Dr., 51 F.3d 1402 (9th Cir.) (district courts have broad discretion in drafting verdict forms)
- Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir.) (harmlessness standard for jury instruction error in civil cases)
- Caballero v. City of Concord, 956 F.2d 204 (9th Cir.) (reversal required only if error likely affected outcome)
- Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.) (standard for JMOL — only when evidence permits one reasonable conclusion contrary to verdict)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.) (new-trial reversal only if record contains no evidence supporting verdict)
- Farley Transp. Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 786 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial)