Wirshing v. Banco Santander de Puerto Rico
254 F. Supp. 3d 271
D.P.R.2015Background
- Plaintiff Rose Wirshing sued Banco Santander de Puerto Rico for retaliatory harassment after she complained of sexual harassment.
- Jury awarded $351,018.34 in compensatory damages and $3,500,000 in punitive damages.
- Defendant moved for remittitur or new trial; court granted in part, denied in part, and vacated punitive damages.
- Court upheld compensatory award and applied Law 115 doubling; Title VII cap affects the federal portion.
- Court concluded punitive damages must be vacated under Kolstad good-faith efforts standard and Title VII framework.
- Plaintiff’s counsel must file attorney’s-fees motion; defendant to respond; case not relitigated on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compensatory award is grossly excessive. | Wirshing argues award reasonable given evidence of distress. | Wirshing failed to plead constructive discharge; seeks no economic damages; awards excessive. | Award not grossly excessive; kept in full. |
| Whether Law 115 doubling applies to compensatory damages. | Law 115 doubles damages for protected activity; EEOC charge qualifies. | No double damages under Law 115; act not protective. | Law 115 doubling applies; damages doubled. |
| How to allocate compensatory damages under Title VII cap. | Seek to maximize recovery by allocating minimal Title VII amount. | Cap applies to Title VII; must limit federal portion. | Allocates $1 to Title VII and $351,017.34 to Law 115; then double to $702,034.68. |
| Whether punitive damages may be upheld given Kolstad good-faith efforts. | Punitive damages justified by evidence of management-level discrimination. | Employer engaged in good-faith efforts; no punitive liability. | Punitive damages vacated; good-faith efforts shown. |
| Whether Title VII punitive cap applies to this award. | Cap applies to punitive and compensatory; award complies with Gore standards. | Cap should reduce total damages; punitive portion accordingly. | Cap requires punitive damages vacated; overall remittitur not ordered for punitive portion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monteagudo v. Asociacion de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 554 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for remittitur; upholds substantial damages in discrimination cases)
- Rodríguez-Torres v. Caribbean Forms Mfr., Inc., 399 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2005) (limits on punitive damages; standard for imputing liability)
- Romano v. U-Haul Int'l, 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir. 2000) (good-faith effort indicators; anti-discrimination policy insufficient alone)
- Koster v. Trans World Airlines, 181 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (emotional-damages standards; limits on punitive considerations)
- Smith v. Kmart Corp., 177 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1999) (non-economic loss valuation; deference to jury's assessment)
- Rodriguez-Garcia v. Miranda-Marin, 610 F.3d 756 (1st Cir. 2010) (upholding large compensatory awards for emotional distress)
- Nieves Cruz v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 151 D.P.R. 150 (Puerto Rico 2000) (exaggeratedly high standard for remittitur in Puerto Rico context)