Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Turley, African-American, worked at Lackawanna steel plant from 1995 to 2009 amid escalating racial harassment.
- Harassment included slurs, threats, KKK references, noose, and monkey imagery; management responses were inadequate or complicit.
- Supervisors sometimes investigated but often tolerated or participated in harassment; limited disciplinary actions occurred.
- Plaintiff's mental health deteriorated; he suffered panic attacks, depression, PTSD, weight loss, and hospital visits.
- District court awarded compensatory and punitive damages; remittitur reduced punitive award from $24M to $5M; fees awarded.
- Appellants challenge liability findings, damages, and the punitive damages remittitur, raising multiple appellate issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions on employer liability | Turley contends instructions properly imputed harassment to employer via supervisor knowledge. | Defendants claim instructions misled by focusing on isolated failures rather than totality of actions. | Instructions, read as a whole, correctly directed totality-of-action standard. |
| Single-employer liability under Title VII and NYHRL | Turley argues parent and subsidiary acted as a single employer for liability. | Mittal/ArcelorMittal argues separate entities, no single-employer liability. | Sufficient evidence to treat parent and subsidiary as a single employer for purposes of liability. |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress viability | IIED claim supported by outrageous harassment and employer's role. | IIED should be disfavored; statutory claims should preclude IIED. | Sampsell/Lackawanna IIED claim sustained; in context of facts, outrageous conduct supported. |
| Punitive damages amount and remittitur | High punitive award appropriate given egregious conduct. | Punitive award excessive and not proportional to harm or comparable cases. | Punitive damages excessive; remittitur ordered to a ratio around 2:1, with possible new trial if plaintiff rejects reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (establishes standard for hostile environment severity)
- Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2013) (employer liability requires reasonable response under totality of circumstances)
- Cook v. Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc., 69 F.3d 1235 (2d Cir. 1995) (four-factor test for single-employer/enterprise liability)
- Murray v. Miner, 74 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1996) (corporate veil piercing and single-employer concepts in discrimination context)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (piercing the corporate veil and parent-subsidiary liability principles)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (guides constitutional review of punitive damages for reasonableness and proportionality)