Theresa Waldo v. Consumers Energy Company
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16555
6th Cir.2013Background
- Waldo, female electrical line worker, suffered persistent gender-based harassment at Consumers Energy from 2001–2005 across Transmission and Distribution crews.
- Incidents included sexually explicit materials in trucks, name-calling (e.g., “bitch,” “wench”), being locked in a porta-potty, purse-destruction, and denial of restroom access.
- She alleged seven claims: three Title VII federal claims (discrimination, hostile environment, retaliation), three state-law sex-discrimination claims, and a tort—intentional infliction of emotional distress (later withdrawn).
- After trial in 2009 Consumers won on three federal claims; Waldo obtained a new trial for her hostile-environment claim, which the district court granted.
- In 2010 a second trial awarded Waldo $400,000 in compensatory and $7.5 million in punitive damages, later remitted to $300,000; Consumers contested the grant of a new trial, denial of JMOL, and attorney-fee/cost awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial on the hostile-work-environment claim | Waldo argues the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; district court properly weighed the totality of circumstances. | Consumers contends the verdict was reasonable; new trial was warranted due to weight of evidence. | No abuse; new trial upheld. |
| Whether the district court correctly denied Consumers’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law | Sufficient evidence supported a hostile environment under Title VII and employer liability. | Evidence did not establish severe/pervasive harassment or employer liability within legal standards. | No JMOL error; evidence supported the verdict. |
| Whether the district court properly awarded attorney fees and costs to Waldo | Fees fully justified given excellent result on a central hostile-environment issue. | Fees should be reduced due to partial success and first-trial loss. | Fees upheld as reasonable; no reduction for success proportion. |
| Whether the scope of recoverable costs was proper | Costs for focus groups, mock trials, jury services, mediation were reasonable and necessary. | Some costs were non-recoverable or inadequately documented. | Costs awarded; district court’s discretion upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2008) (pervasive harassment standard under Title VII applies to totality of circumstances)
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile environment requires conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive)
- Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 1999) (conduct beyond sexual acts can contribute to hostile environment)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (claim accrual and consideration of entire period for hostile environment)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (reasonableness of attorney fees; degree of success governs awards)
- Jordan v. City of Cleveland, 464 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2006) (related claims with common core of facts may warrant full fee recovery)