643 F. App'x 507
6th Cir.2016Background
- Tina Varlesi, a Wayne State University (WSU) MSW student with strong academic/field records, became pregnant during her final year and was placed at a Salvation Army male rehab site for spring 2008.
- Her field instructor, Stefanski, repeatedly criticized Varlesi about her pregnancy (clothing, "belly rubbing") and ultimately issued an unusually harsh, failing field evaluation; faculty advisor Premo then gave Varlesi a failing placement grade, preventing her graduation.
- Varlesi complained internally and to outside authorities; she alleged pregnancy discrimination and retaliation by Premo, Najor-Durack (Director of Field Education), Dean Vroom, and WSU, and filed suit under Title IX and Michigan's Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to several defendants and narrowed the trial to pregnancy discrimination and retaliation claims against Premo, Najor-Durack, Vroom, and WSU; after a 13-day trial, the jury awarded Varlesi $848,690.
- Defendants moved for JMOL/new trial/remittitur and appealed numerous evidentiary and instruction rulings; the Sixth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission/exclusion of Varlesi's 2002 psychiatric hospitalization and 2007 broken engagement | Varlesi: these prior events are irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to her emotional-distress claims unless she "opened the door." | Defendants: evidence bears on alternative sources of emotional distress and should be admitted to rebut damages. | Court: district court did not abuse discretion; relevance outweighed by prejudice under Rule 403 and Varlesi did not open the door. |
| Timing/admission of undated letters from prior field instructor (Mackey) | Varlesi: letters may be fabricated or post-hoc and are unreliable; their late admission properly limited. | Defendants: letters show preexisting performance problems and should have been admitted earlier. | Court: trial court reasonably withheld formal admission pending authentication/dating; no abuse of discretion. |
| Future/front-pay damages, mitigation, and remittitur | Varlesi: provided evidence on mitigation, lost opportunities, and labor statistics to support future damages. | Defendants: future damages speculative due to youth; failure to mitigate; award excessive and should be remitted. | Court: district court acted within broad discretion; evidence supported future damages and mitigation burden was on defendants; remittitur denied. |
| Causation standard for retaliation post-Nassar (but-for vs. significant factor) | Varlesi: jury instructions using "significant factor" were the law at trial time; verdict form used "because" and jury found but-for causation. | Defendants: Nassar requires but-for causation; district court's instructions were legally incorrect and prejudicial. | Court: even if Nassar applies, jury verdict (express finding of "because") shows no prejudice; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Peoplemark, 732 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion in reviewing district court rulings)
- Maday v. Public Libraries, 480 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2007) (waiver and limits on confidentiality; discussed in context of admitting evidence of alternative sources of emotional distress)
- Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation; discussed as background on causation standard)
- Roush v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co., 10 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 1993) (factors guiding award of future damages/front pay)
- Shore v. Fed. Express Corp., 42 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1994) (district court has wide discretion in awarding speculative future damages)