933 F. Supp. 2d 285
D. Conn.2013Background
- Jury found FMSU liable on contract and implied covenant; HLUS and FujiFilm liable for tortious interference.
- Jury found no liability on Title VII, CFEPA, ADEA, or defamation claims.
- Damages awarded: $150,000 non-economic; $567,357 economic for breach of contract, plus prejudgment interest.
- Post-trial motions: Defendants seek JAML on tortious interference, remittitur; all Defendants seek new trial; Weber seeks lost wages and prejudgment interest; Weber seeks new trial on discrimination claims.
- Court grants lost wages for tortious interference; partial prejudgment interest; denies remittitur, new trials on several grounds, and limits on after-acquired evidence effects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for tortious interference | Weber argues evidence supports improper means/malice beyond discrimination. | HLUS/ FujiFilm contend verdict rests on discrimination claims; insufficient improper means evidence. | No clear error; evidence supports jury findings of tortious interference. |
| Remittitur of non-economic damages | Emotional distress warrant $150k; not excessive. | $150k excessive; garden-variety distress; remittitur appropriate. | Remittitur denied; award upheld as not shocking the conscience. |
| Admissibility/effect of after-acquired evidence on damages and contract claims | After-acquired evidence may limit damages for pre-termination conduct. | After-acquired evidence should limit damages and support defense of breach if relevant. | After-acquired evidence excluded for damages and for liability unless it proves prior breach; properly limited per court's instructions. |
| Prejudgment interest calculation | Ten percent compound prejudgment interest appropriate. | Simple interest preferred; 4% is appropriate context. | Prejudgment interest awarded at simple 4% annual rate from termination date to judgment date. |
| Plaintiff's claim for lost wages in tortious interference | Lost wages/back/postures appropriate measure of damages in employment tortious interference. | No Connecticut precedent for lost wages in tortious interference; not available. | Lost wages awarded; amount to be determined in separate proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Municipal Inv. v. Rioux, 283 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2007) (elements of tortious interference with contract and business expectancy)
- Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (Conn. 2000) (elements of intentional interference and improper motive)
- Boulevard Assocs. v. Sovereign Hotels, Inc., 72 F.3d 1029 (2d Cir. 1995) (parental privilege and egregious conduct exception to interference)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1995) (after-acquired evidence limits damages; pretermination liability)
- Russell v. Microdyne Corp., 65 F.3d 1229 (4th Cir. 1995) (after-acquired evidence and compensatory damages scope)
- Cross v. Samper, 501 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2007) (after-acquired evidence used to cap damages)
- Miller v. Beneficial Management Corp., 855 F. Supp. 691 (D.N.J. 1994) (emotional distress not barred by after-acquired evidence)
- Gaudio v. Griffin Health Servs. Corp., 249 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1999) (emotional distress damages and defamation context)
- Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 Conn. App. 589 (Ct. App. 2012) (appellate guidance on emotional damages)