Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.
94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,066
2d Cir.2010Background
- Thomas was terminated by iStar Financial in August 2003; he alleged Title VII retaliation and NYC Human Rights Law claims, and hostile work environment claims were dismissed at summary judgment.
- A jury found retaliation (not racial animus) and awarded front-pay, back-pay, non-economic damages, and punitive damages of $1.6 million.
- The district court remitted punitive damages to $190,000 and Thomas agreed via a joint submission; post-trial, he challenged the remittitur and related proceedings.
- The district court later corrected prejudgment interest calculation from federal to New York rate; an appeal had already been docketed.
- Thomas argued the remittitur appeal should proceed and contested the clerical correction; the district court’s correction of prejudgment interest was challenged as improper when appeal was pending.
- The district court granted relief on the remittitur and corrected the prejudgment interest rate; Thomas appealed various challenges to rulings at trial and post-trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Thomas appeal the remittitur after agreeing to it? | Thomas contends the remittitur is appealable. | Defendants argue remittitur is not appealable once accepted. | Thomas cannot appeal the remittitur; appeal denied. |
| Eligibility of the district court's clerical correction without leave to amend when an appeal is pending | Thomas argues correction was invalid without leave. | District court acted properly but needed leave under Rule 60(a). | Leave granted nunc pro tunc to correct clerical error; corrective order effective. |
| Correct rate for prejudgment interest on damages | Federal rate should apply because federal claims predominate; Marfia limits apply only to pure state claims. | Where damages cover both state and federal claims with no distinction, federal rate applies. | Federal prejudgment interest rate applies where damages span federal and state claims; district court correctly used federal rate. |
| Whether the district court erred in other challenged rulings (summary judgment on hostile environment, etc.) | Thomas challenges hostile environment summary judgment and other trial rulings. | Defendants contend rulings were correct and supported by record. | No reversible error found; claims and evidentiary rulings upheld; jury trial on back-pay damages was permissible with consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., Inc., 429 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1977) (plaintiff may not appeal remittitur after acceptance)
- Marfia v. T.C. Ziraat Bankasi, 147 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1998) (federal law governs prejudgment interest on mixed claims when applicable)
- Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (equitable and compensatory damages considerations for Title VII include back-pay)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (evidentiary rulings and admissibility principles in jury trials)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)