Trainor v. HEI Hospitality, LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22554
1st Cir.2012Background
- Trainor, age 59, joined HEI as SVP for acquisitions in 2006, relocating partially to Norwalk under a shared arrangement.
- Fall 2008 restructuring discussions raised relocation and demotion to a Cambridge GM role with pay cuts and loss of investment-fund participation.
- Trainor sent December 4 letter alleging age discrimination; HEI executives reacted with surprise and frustration about the discrimination claim.
- On January 2, 2009, Trainor was fired hours after HEI received notice of the MCAD complaint; HEI admits the firing occurred after the MCAD letter.
- A jury found retaliation (not age discrimination) and awarded back pay, front pay, and emotional distress; district court doubled damages under state law and awarded fees and equitable relief.
- On appeal, HEI challenges damages, front pay, equitable relief, and fee rulings; court affirms most, but orders further remittitur of emotional distress and adjusts doubling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of retaliation evidence | Trainor argues protected conduct caused adverse action. | HEI contends actions were preplanned unrelated to protected activity. | Judgment not disturbed; reasonable jury could find retaliation. |
| Mitigation of damages | Trainor exercised due diligence to find new work; mitigation failure not shown. | HEI argues failure to mitigate reduces damages. | District court’s denial of remittitur for mitigation affirmed. |
| Availability and sufficiency of front pay | Front pay should compensate; not impermissibly duplicative with double damages. | Front pay may be barred where damages are multiplied. | Front pay available; evidence supported award through 2013; not barred by multiplicative damages. |
| Emotional distress remittitur | Remittitur excessive; the award was within jury’s discretion. | Remittitur appropriate due to lack of medical proof and thin evidence. | Further remittitur required; maximum reasonable award is $200,000; remittitur or new trial; adjust doubling accordingly. |
| Multiplication of damages and waiver | N/A | HEI contends inconsistency between state double damages and federal willful violation findings. | Waived due to failure to object to inconsistency after verdict; cannot challenge multiplication on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casillas-Díaz v. Palau, 463 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2006) (gives standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in retaliation claims)
- McMillan v. Mass. SPCA, 140 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 1998) (prima facie retaliation elements and causation framework)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity as evidence of causation in retaliation cases)
- Wildman v. Lerner Stores Corp., 771 F.2d 605 (1st Cir. 1985) (front pay and multipliers interplay with remittitur)
- Lussier v. Runyon, 50 F.3d 1103 (1st Cir. 1995) (discretion in front pay awards and non-mutual exclusivity with doubled damages)
- Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp., 613 N.E.2d 881 (Mass. 1993) (Massachusetts case cited on punitive nature of multiplier damages)
- Koster v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (maximum recovery/remittitur framework)
- Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934 (1st Cir. 1992) (interrelatedness of claims for fee-shifting awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (governs attorney’s fees and interrelatedness of claims)