Russo v. Tuttnauer USA Company Limited
2:21-cv-01720
| E.D.N.Y | Jun 6, 2025Background
- Barbara Russo, a long-term employee of Tuttnauer USA, brought suit alleging a hostile work environment, gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL.
- At trial, the jury found in Russo’s favor on her hostile work environment claim, specifically finding Defendants Basile and Connors aided and abetted the hostile environment and awarded $2.5M in compensatory and $5M in punitive damages.
- Post-trial, Defendants moved under Rule 50 for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the aiding and abetting verdict against Basile, seeking a new trial or remittitur on damages, and to reduce/eliminate punitive damages under Title VII’s statutory cap.
- The court held the evidence supported the jury’s verdict as to Basile’s liability but held the damages were excessive, ordering remittitur of compensatory damages to $1M and punitive to $299,999 (Title VII cap), with compensatory damages largely allocated to the NYSHRL claim.
- The court required Russo to accept the remitted damages by a specified date or face a new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Basile’s aiding and abetting liability | Basile personally participated and failed to act after receiving complaints, supporting liability | Basile’s actions/emails were outside the statutory period; no evidence of inaction within limitations or direct contemporaneous complaints | Sufficient evidence for jury; motion denied |
| Jury’s compensatory damages were excessive | Emotional distress and PTSD justified high damages; comparable to other egregious cases | Damages exceed those awarded in comparable cases with worse conduct; should be remitted | Award excessive; reduced to $1M (unless plaintiff seeks new trial) |
| Title VII punitive damages cap exceeded | Parent company’s global employee count triggers $300,000 cap; damages can be allocated to maximize recovery | Only U.S. entity’s 40 employees count, yielding $50,000 cap | Statutory cap is $300,000 (global employees counted); punitive damages reduced to $299,999 |
| Allocation of damages between claims for recovery | Compensatory awarded under NYSHRL (uncapped); punitive under Title VII; maximizes recovery | No specific counterargument articulated | Allocated as plaintiff proposed for maximum lawful recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Rule 50 standard: courts must draw all inferences for non-movant, not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations.)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (Individual liability for aiding/abetting under NYSHRL requires personal involvement and failure to act.)
- Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (Remittitur appropriate where damages deviate materially from reasonable compensation.)
- Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140 (Affirmed egregious emotional distress damages in harassment; used as comparator for remittitur here.)
- Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (Affirmed $1M comp. damages for long-term harassment; used for upper range comparison.)
- Morelli v. Cedel, 141 F.3d 39 (Parent and subsidiary global employees counted for statutory damages cap purposes under Title VII.)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (Framework for punitive damages constitutional review.)