Sheryl Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost
933 F.3d 558
6th Cir.2019Background
- Sheryl Hubbell, a FedEx parcel sorter and later lead parcel sorter in Belleville, MI, alleges her hub manager made sexist comments urging her to accept a demotion and thereafter subjected her to increased discipline, close surveillance, reduced hours/opportunities, and eventual demotion and termination.
- Hubbell filed multiple EEOC charges (Nov 2013, Mar 2014, Feb 2015) and a lawsuit in Oct 2014; she claims retaliation for the EEOC complaints and for filing suit.
- FedEx managers and HR received some complaints; HR testimony showed no documented investigation into Hubbell’s sex-discrimination claims despite company training and policies; a limited investigatory form related to a different incident was produced.
- The district court granted summary judgment for FedEx on hostile-work-environment but allowed claims for gender discrimination and retaliation to proceed; the court framed a narrow view of what constituted a "materially adverse" retaliatory act at summary judgment (later deemed incorrect).
- A jury found for Hubbell on retaliation, awarded back/front pay, non-economic damages, and punitive damages; the district court reduced punitive damages to the Title VII cap of $300,000 and later awarded Hubbell attorney’s fees but substantially reduced the requested rates and hours.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed liability and punitive damages (applying the correct Burlington Northern standard for retaliation), and affirmed the district court’s reduction of attorney’s fees as within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported Title VII retaliation verdict | Hubbell: surveillance, frequent disciplinary writeups, restrictions on clocking and hours, and timing after EEOC filings show materially adverse acts and causation | FedEx: many alleged acts were not materially adverse per district-court summary-judgment framing; some acts predated EEOC filings and managers lacked knowledge of lawsuit | Court: Applying Burlington standard, a reasonable jury could find acts (alone/combined) would dissuade a reasonable worker and that retaliation was a but-for cause; affirm verdict |
| Proper legal standard for "materially adverse" in retaliation claims | Burlington Northern standard applies (less stringent than discrimination standard) | FedEx relied on pre-2006 Sixth Circuit standard equating discrimination and retaliation harms | Court: Burlington governs; district court erred at summary judgment but appellate review applies correct standard; Burlington controls |
| Punitive damages availability and sufficiency of evidence under Kolstad | Hubbell: managerial actors acted with malice/reckless indifference; FedEx failed to investigate; policy/training not sincerely applied | FedEx: punitive damages require egregious conduct or are precluded by jury’s initial good-faith finding; company had anti-discrimination policies and training | Court: Kolstad requires showing manager’s malice/reckless indifference; evidence permitted jury to find this and that FedEx did not act in good faith; court properly sent inconsistent verdict back to jury and affirmed punitive damages (adjusted to cap) |
| District court’s reduction of attorney’s fees | Hubbell: requested fees unopposed; court should have awarded full amount; applied wrong (Michigan) factors and deviated from prior block-billing practice | FedEx: fee reductions were appropriate given vagueness/duplication, reasonable hourly rate, and court’s lodestar discretion | Held: District court did not abuse discretion—reduced hourly rate and trimmed hours (35%) based on records and local norms; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation requires showing materially adverse action that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (standards for punitive damages under Title VII; manager state of mind and employer good-faith defense)
- New Breed Logistics, 783 F.3d 1057 (6th Cir.) (burden-shifting and standards for reviewing Rule 50 denial; punitive-damages analysis)
- Rogers v. Henry Ford Health Sys., 897 F.3d 763 (6th Cir.) (retaliation prima facie elements and lower standard for materially adverse acts)
- Moore v. Kuka Welding Sys., 171 F.3d 1073 (6th Cir.) (frequent trivial write-ups and unwarranted criticism can support retaliation finding)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (lodestar method for attorney’s fees)
- Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (juries presumed to follow instructions; context for handling inconsistent verdicts)