189 F. Supp. 3d 360
D. Conn.2016Background
- Vera, a long‑time project manager at Alstom, sued for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and CFEPA after filing a CHRO complaint; a jury rejected the sex‑discrimination claims but found retaliation for denial of a 2011 performance evaluation/raise and for her June 2011 termination.
- The jury awarded $500,000 in non‑economic damages and $350,000 in punitive damages; court held an evidentiary hearing post‑trial to determine back pay and remedial relief.
- Alstom moved under Rule 50(b)/59 for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur; it also argued Vera failed to mitigate.
- The court denied judgment as a matter of law and denied a new trial based on the exclusion of settlement negotiation evidence, but found the damage awards excessive and conditioned vacatur on remittitur.
- The court awarded back pay (salary, bonuses, 401(k) contributions) because Alstom failed to prove lack of mitigation, and ordered reinstatement (preferred remedy) rather than front pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for retaliation (Rule 50(b)) | Vera argued temporal proximity plus supervisors' remarks, pretext, procedural deviations and changed headcount supported retaliation. | Alstom argued evidence was insufficient and its headcount/restructuring was the legitimate reason for termination. | Denied Rule 50(b); jury verdict on retaliation was supported by evidence and inferences of pretext. |
| New trial based on exclusion of settlement‑negotiation evidence | Vera opposed admission of settlement substance; allowed limited testimony about communications. | Alstom argued exclusion of settlement evidence prevented explanation of timing of layoff and affected substantial rights. | Denied: court exercised discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 408, allowed limited testimony about lawyer discussions, and found no substantial prejudice. |
| Remittitur of non‑economic and punitive damages | Vera urged to uphold jury awards as reflective of harms. | Alstom argued awards were excessive for garden‑variety distress and disproportionate punitive damages. | Conditional remittitur granted: reduce non‑economic damages to $125,000 and punitive damages to $50,000 or else new trial on damages. |
| Back pay and mitigation | Vera asserted she reasonably searched for comparable work and is entitled to back pay, bonuses, 401(k) and prejudgment interest. | Alstom argued Vera failed to mitigate (sparse documentation, near retirement, years without work). | Granted back pay ($475,345.65 plus prejudgment interest to be calculated), bonuses and 401(k) contributions; Alstom did not meet burden to prove failure to mitigate. |
| Reinstatement v. front pay | Vera sought reinstatement (or five years front pay) to make her whole. | Alstom contended reinstatement would be unworkable due to animosity and Vera’s alleged contempt for procedures/colleagues. | Reinstatement ordered: court found no unusual hostility that would preclude reinstatement and favored the preferred, make‑whole remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broadnax v. City of New Haven, 415 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2005) (back pay is equitable and for the court to determine)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (discrediting employer’s explanation can be probative of intentional discrimination)
- Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (punitive damages require malice or reckless indifference to federal rights)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (guideposts for reviewing punitive damages)
- Stampf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 761 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2014) (standards for remittitur and punitive‑damages review)
- Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2014) (scrutiny for large emotional‑distress awards)
- Saulpaugh v. Monroe Cmty. Hosp., 4 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1993) (prejudgment interest and back pay principles)
- Clarke v. Frank, 960 F.2d 1146 (2d Cir. 1992) (Title VII back pay authority)