Travers v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc.
808 F.3d 525
1st Cir.2015Background
- Joseph Travers, a JetBlue skycap employed by Flight Services and Systems, Inc. (FSS), helped organize a class action alleging reduced tips after JetBlue instituted a $2-per-bag fee; FSS later fired Travers.
- Travers sued individually for unlawful retaliatory termination under the FLSA and Massachusetts law; after summary judgment for FSS was reversed on appeal, a jury found for Travers.
- The jury awarded $90,000 back pay, $450,000 front pay, and $400,000 emotional distress; the District Court trebled back pay, remitted emotional distress to $50,000 (accepted by Travers), and eliminated front pay as speculative.
- The District Court awarded Travers $176,185 in attorney’s fees and $7,398.45 in costs; it denied prejudgment interest on emotional-distress damages and on back pay (the latter later certified to the Massachusetts SJC as a question).
- On appeal, FSS challenged liability, evidentiary rulings (notably hearsay testimony about a manager Nichols), damages, and attorney-fee recovery; Travers cross-appealed the elimination of front pay, refusal to treble emotional distress, and denial of prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Travers) | Defendant's Argument (FSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / judgment as a matter of law | Evidence (circumstantial manager testimony, warnings, investigator’s evasive remark) supports but-for causation for retaliation | Testimony about Nichols was inadmissible hearsay; without it no reasonable jury could find causation | Affirmed denial of JMOL — even excluding Nichols testimony, circumstantial evidence supported verdict |
| Motion for new trial based on prejudicial hearsay (Nichols) | Admission of Nichols testimony was harmless because other evidence supported verdict | Admission of Nichols testimony was highly prejudicial and warranted a new trial | Denial of new trial affirmed; company forfeited a preserved plain-error showing and harm was not shown plainly obvious |
| Back-pay calculations and equitable defenses (unclean hands / after-acquired evidence) | Back pay supported by Travers’s testimony about lost tips; trebling under Mass. Gen. Laws ch.149 §150 applied | Travers under-reported tips (unclean hands); after-acquired evidence would have justified firing; jury should credit reported tips only | District Court did not abuse discretion: unclean-hands and after-acquired evidence doctrines not applied; jury-credit of Travers’s tip testimony sustained; back pay trebled by statute affirmed |
| Emotional-distress damages remittitur and possible trebling | $400,000 emotional-distress award was reasonable and should not be reduced or trebled under §150 (as “other benefits”) | Award excessive; remittitur to $50,000 appropriate and emotional distress not a treble-eligible “benefit” | Remittitur to $50,000 affirmed; refusal to treble emotional-distress award under §150 affirmed (emotional distress not an “other benefit”) |
| Front-pay award elimination | Some front pay is supportable based on testimony of expected continued employment and lost tips | $450,000 front-pay award speculative over 20 years and properly struck entirely | District Court erred to eliminate all front pay; vacated elimination and remanded to compute a supported front-pay award (discounted to present value) |
| Prejudgment interest vs. mandatory treble damages (state law) | Prejudgment interest on back pay required under Mass. Gen. Laws ch.231 §6B despite §150 trebling | 2008 amendment making trebling mandatory and “liquidated damages” displaces prejudgment interest | Certification to Massachusetts SJC: whether §150 implicitly repealed §6B; unsettled under state law; court awaits SJC answer |
Key Cases Cited
- Travers v. Flight Servs. & Sys., Inc., 737 F.3d 144 (1st Cir. 2013) (earlier panel opinion reversing summary judgment)
- Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing JMOL)
- Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) (excising inadmissible evidence in JMOL review)
- Speen v. Crown Clothing Corp., 102 F.3d 625 (1st Cir. 1996) (circumstantial evidence can support retaliation verdicts)
- Trainor v. HEI Hospitality, LLC, 699 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2012) (deference to jury where record supports conflicting versions)
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing damages/remittitur)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (after-acquired evidence limits remedies)
- Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) (liquidated damages may compensate for delay and preclude separate prejudgment interest)
- Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., 699 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012) (characterizing mandatory treble damages under amended §150 as liquidated/compensatory in due-process analysis)