Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc.
33 F. Supp. 3d 118
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Wiercinski, Jewish deliveryman, employed by Mangia 57 from 1999–2007; tips from customers were a major earnings component.
- Plaintiff alleges a hostile work environment based on religion and ancestry/ethnicity, and Title VII retaliation, conspiracy, and related NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims; only Title VII hostile environment claims remained after partial dismissal.
- Zbozien (night shift manager) accused of anti-Semitic harassment; Cymanow (general manager) was the supervisor authorized to hire/fire; other witnesses testified inconsistently.
- Plaintiff testified to pervasive anti-Semitic slurs and abusive conduct; defendant presented corroborating testimony from un-impeached, disinterested witnesses Zelmanovitch and Furman.
- Jury verdict: supervisor harassment established; Cymanow identified as the only supervisor; co-worker harassment not found; punitive damages awarded were $900,000; plaintiff sought damages and punitive relief denied by court pending post-trial rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mangia can be held liable for supervisor harassment | Wiercinski relied on supervisor Zbozien’s conduct. | Zbozien was not a supervisor with tangible actions; Cymanow only supervisor. | No supervisor liability; Cymanow not shown to be harasser; requires reversal or new trial on liability. |
| Whether Rule 50(b) judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate | Jury verdict should stand based on credibility; no basis for JMOL. | Given credibility issues, verdict is seriously erroneous and miscarriage of justice. | Granted Rule 50(b) and vacated verdict; judgment for defendant. |
| Whether punitive damages award is excessive and warrants new trial | Punitive award proportional to harm; due process concerns not met. | Award grossly excessive relative to compensatory damages. | Rule 59(a) new trial granted; punitive award overturned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (reviewing jury verdict with standard of reasonableness; credibility issues)
- Harris v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 252 F.3d 592 (2d Cir.2001) (cadence of Rule 50(a)/(b) credibility considerations)
- Fairbrother v. Morrison, 412 F.3d 39 (2d Cir.2005) (credibility and weighing evidence in Rule 50 analysis)
- Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411 (2d Cir.2012) (new trial standard; judge may weigh credibility)
- Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85 (2d Cir.2013) (punitive damages review; reasonableness and due process)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S.2006) (case on Rule 50(b) discretion and new trial vs judgment)
- Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212 (U.S.1947) (Rule 50 analysis; trial judge’s feel for the case)
- Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 41? / 356 U.S. 148 (U.S.1958) (privilege against self-incrimination and cross-examination scope)