Russell v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.
2011 ME 123
| Me. | 2011Background
- Edward Russell, openly gay, worked as a supervisor at ExpressJet's Portland station after it opened in 2002.
- Russell learned of a complaint alleging ExpressJet favored gay men for management, and was told that a general manager position would not be available to him.
- ExpressJet's regional director Barr implied Russell would not become GM, referencing the prior complaint; later, Thomas suggested a policy against internal promotion to GM from within the station.
- Despite interest, Russell was discouraged from pursuing GM roles as management changed; he contended there was an unwritten exception policy, though he was advised to apply elsewhere.
- In 2006–2007 Russell sought GM openings; after Rosenbaur was hired with negative anti-gay remarks reportedly made, Russell resigned in April 2007.
- Russell brought MHRA discrimination claims; the jury found adverse action and that sexual orientation was a motivating factor, awarding damages; the court applied a $500,000 cap and denied post-trial relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether futility exception applies under MHRA | Russell's lack of formal application can be excused under futility. | Futility requires objective evidence; not just subjective discouragement. | Yes, sufficient evidence supported futility; exception recognized but narrow. |
| Correct statutory cap on damages under MHRA | Cap should reflect small-entity provision due to Maine operations. | Cap applies based on nationwide employee count; large employer cap of $500,000 correct. | Court applied the $500,000 cap; interpretation consistent with statute. |
| Whether denial of motion for new trial/remittitur was proper | Damages were excessive; remittitur should be considered. | Damages supported by plaintiff's testimony and instructions; no abuse. | No clear abuse of discretion; damages supported by evidence. |
| Admission of Rosenbaur statement about anti-gay sentiment | Statement shows pervasive anti-gay sentiment affecting decision making. | Statement relevance is limited; admissibility challenged. | No clear error; statement admissible to support pervasive sentiment. |
| Punitive damages and clerical error | Punitive damages were properly awarded where supported. | Punitive damages were clerical error; should be excluded. | Punitive damages not included in final judgment due to clerical error; remaining compensatory damages upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (futility concept in discrimination claims; not requiring full application)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (burden-shifting framework in discrimination law)
- Cookson v. Brewer Sch. Dep’t, 2009 ME 57 (2009) (prima facie MHRA framework and burden allocation)
- Kopenga v. Davric Me. Corp., 1999 ME 65 (1999) (pain and nonpecuniary damage standards under MHRA)
- Anastos v. Town of Brunswick, 2011 ME 41 (2011) (statutory cap interpretation on MHRA damages)
- Madore v. Kennebec Heights Country Club, 2007 ME 92 (2007) (de novo review of judgment as of law; jury verdict sufficiency)
- Brown v. Coach Stores, Inc., 163 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 1998) (futility and discrimination context in civil rights)