*1 weapon people and shoots several Tisdale, burglar into automatic broke In ties. subject evening. weapon The of his is not in one with one burst in one mall stores three breaking provisions and enter- of this statute. On the other held that Tenth Circuit hand, within the separate steps stores if he takes several around a room ing of the three separate others, locations burglaries of were the statute mall divider and shoots several simultaneously. More- because, not occur operative that could at least in some becomes court, over, the defen- because sense, concluded to think metaphysical he had time burglaries after his chose to continue dant pull trigger. the second of the The about one, engaged he had successfully completing no doubt deserve se- crimes described above episodes. Id. at 1099. separate criminal However, it is difficult to punishment. vere of the rather terse treatment The court’s intend, see, Congress certainly did any difficult to assess with makes it issue one, other, individual be that but not the cases are similar be- accuracy whether the treated as a recidivist. they involve break- yond the fact that both Bright-line devices have a mechanistic evening. It is mall in one shopping in a ins However, Congress place in the law. when a conceive of situation not difficult to here, clearly that requires, as it has we dis- other, to each the location of the stores tinguish between individuals committed involved, operandi the modus time repetitive acts of violence and those who have than one that more would make it clear lives, pattern such a in their me- not shown Tisdale, therefore, place. took aggression task, may simplify tests but chanistic ACCA, a purposes of the may present, for great they make it a deal less accurate. also one before very from the different situation easy approach court has chosen the Here the hand, If, factually it is on the other us. also, undoubtedly, bring indi- that will more case, suggest I indistinguishable from our within the ambit of the statute. Our viduals analysis that we it cannot fit within task, however, statutory not to stretch years to carefully developed over the have responsive to the will of language, but to be it and to deal with identify behavior recidivist majority a Congress. The has chosen Here, the con- Congress has mandated. as objective. fulfill that Ac- that will course .not stores, very layout short tiguous of the cordingly, respectfully I dissent. of the entire involved in the execution time fact that the thieves treated plan, and the planning and its execu-
operation, both its it,
tion, pur- unitary matter make as intent, fulfilling congressional
poses of robbery to the of the six restaurant
similar En- Petty. It both the patrons stretches HUTCHISON, Plaintiff- L. Greta realities of the situa- glish language and the Cross-Appellant, Appellee, any- this situation was tion to conclude that single thing-other than a occasion. careful, Today, the court abandons the SUPPLY, ELECTRONIC AMATEUR past thoughtful work-produet of its decisions Sterman, INC., Terry Defendants- that, superficially, approach an
in favor of Appellants, Cross-Appellees. It “bright-line” approach. presents a more 94-1733, 94-1778. Nos. price of the great so at a does —abandonment be congressional mandate that the statute Appeals, United States Court identify the true recidivist and used to Circuit. Seventh differently person because treat Argued Sept. 1994. danger person poses to the rest special precedent of our of us. The abandonment Dec. Decided on regrettable when one reflects even area. litigation the future course the as- majority appears to admit that an apartment an with
sailant who enters *4 Counsel, E.E.O.C., Davis, of Gen. Office
C. DC, curiae E.E.O.C. amicus Washington, for Madison, WI, Olson, Fox, for Fox & Jeff S. Law- Employment amicus curiae Wisconsin Liberties and American Civil Un- yers Ass’n Foundation, Inc. ion of Wisconsin CUMMINGS, ESCHBACH Before MANION, Judges. Circuit CUMMINGS, Judge. Circuit Hutchison juryA awarded Greta on her claims from defendants back retaliatory discharge. sexual harassment and Ms. court denied Hutchison’s The district damages as well as a new trial on request for prejudg- requests reinstatement *5 $67,538.88in and awarded her interest ment as well as attorneys’ defendants fees from $80,000 jury’s Defendants award. on sup- sufficiency the evidence challenge of jury’s finding of a hostile envi- porting cross-appeals the denials Plaintiff ronment. reinstatement, damages, on a new trial well as the as interest attorneys’ fees.1 amount of
BACKGROUND began work Amateur Hutchison Ms. (“AES”) as a file Supply, Inc. Electronic her termi- By time of in 1968. clerk to office progressed she had nation job and the enjoyed her manager. she While received, she increasing responsibility than was less ideal. working environment a formidable ob- encountered Hutchison Ms. in the professional contentment to her stacle Sterman, owner and Terry person of regularly Sterman president AES. frequen- about employees quizzed female He relations. sexual cy nature of their Kings- Jeffrey A. (argued), Heitzer Arthur sexually explicit engaged in numerous also Milwaukee, WI, plaintiff-appellant. ley, brother, with his conversations telephone Esser, Diete- (argued), W. Stevens Daniel open to ensure that leaving his office door Falls, WI, for Stevens, Menomonee rich & primarily fe- other Hutchison and Ms. defendants-appellees. his sala- would overhear workers male office Hutchison com- Ms. comments. When Reams, Nee- cious R. Gwendolyn Young James the office on behalf plained to Sterman Jr., Gregory (argued), Lorraine ly, Robert J. Foundation, seeking brief an amicus Inc. filed Opportunity Commis- Equal Employment The court’s to the district support plaintiff. as and remand reversal filed an amicus brief sion attorneys’ Lawyers fees. Employment plaintiff's Association Wisconsin reduction Union of Wisconsin Civil American Liberties staff, stop offensively he refused to brought loud Ms. Hutchison the instant suit on 23,1991, (1) conversations. December claiming that she was discriminatorily terminated on the basis of engaged Sterman egregious be- age Age in violation of the Discrimination in Peters, Peggy havior as well. He referred to (“ADEA”), Employment § Act U.S.C. one of supervisees, Ms. Hutchison’s as “Ms. (2) seq., discriminatorily et terminated on the Boobs,” both to her face and to others includ- basis of her sex in violation of Title ofVII ing representatives manufacturer from out- 1964, Rights the Civil Act of 42 U.S.C. company, side the and told Ms. Hutchison (3) § seq., sexually 2000e-2 et harassed in that Ms. Peters did not have to work and (4) VII, violation of Title terminated in kept strictly that he on her staff because of opposition retaliation for her to Sterman’s her looks. When Ms. Hutchison confronted harassing behavior in violation of Title VII. Sterman about these statements and Ms. Pe- jury The case was to a beginning tried on production, responded ters’ lack of he “that if September September 1993.2 On Peggy, he ever fired he would hire someone special returned a verdict find- just like her. He said that once we moved to ing for Ms. Hutchison on her claims of sexual headquarters our new ... company retaliatory harassment and firing and award- (Pl.Br. buy sexy would her outfits to wear” ing in back from defendants. 6). Sterman went on to “console” Ms. Hutchison, telling appeal her that he had Defendants now taken a the trial court’s survey of the denial of their they judgment salesmen and found that renewed motion for Peggy rather date her than as a matter of Peters. law. Plaintiff Ms. Hutchison cross-appeals the district court’s denial of her regularly Sterman also commented on Ms. motion for a new trial on the issue of dam- appearance, telling Hutchison’s her “I like *6 ages, denial of her motion for reinstatement way you today” looking look while up her interest, and and the amount of objected and down. When Ms. Hutchison to attorneys’ fees awarded. comments, these responded by Sterman com- menting frequently in front of male DISCUSSION
employees, prefacing often his remarks with (Pl.Br. “I you know don’t like this but ...” Appeal I. 7). challenge Defendants the sufficien frequently Sterman attempted physical cy supporting of the evidence jury’s ver contact with Ms. Hutchison and other female dict finding a hostile environment. In re employees. Several times a week ap- he viewing this claim we are limited to deter proached desk, Ms. Hutchison at her brush- mining “whether presented, the evidence ing against in, pinning her and say- combined with all reasonable inferences that ing response inquiry just to her “I’m it, may be drawn from support is sufficient to
watching you.” Def.Br. 8. He would also the verdict when light viewed most partially block employees’ way his female [plaintiff].” favorable to the E.E.O.C. v. Cen office, through forcing them to brush tury Broadcasting Corp., 1446, 1457 957 F.2d against him or take detours to avoid contact. (7th Cir.1992). We particularly “are careful Sterman announced his employment intention to fire discrimination cases to avoid Ms. Hutchison October 1989 and in No- supplanting our credibility view of the vember 1989 replacement. hired a (in On De- evidence for that jury of both the its 22, 1989, verdict) cember working day (in the last before judge and the not interfering Christmas, verdict).” he “punch told Ms. Hutchison to Hybert with the v. Corp., Hearst out.” 1050, Cir.1990). 1054 jury 2. The case was tried to a under the trial treating district court are jury now the use of the judge’s Rights mistaken belief that the Civil Act as consensual. Since no one contests this after- applied retroactively. 1991 See Hutchison v. appeal, the-fact characterization on we will ac- Inc., Supply, Amateur F.Supp. Electronics 840 cept it. 612, (E.D.Wis.1993). parties The and the strictly at VII, treatment women. a his offensive Title under actionable To be argument that a male worker stemming from a Defendants’ harassment claim of sexual by having to brush equally offended con would be based on must be environment hostile the file pass between against to alter Sterman pervasive “sufficiently or severe duct by him at by pinned employment being cabinets or the victim’s the conditions true, desk, if is irrelevant. Ster- even working environment.” their an abusive and create Vinson, against him to brush man did not force men 477 U.S. Savings Bank v. Meritor up them 2405, past, nor did he look 2399, get L.Ed.2d 49. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. ap- be, pleasure in their express his down and not, by cannot its nature is “This more than am- was pearance. ... But we can The evidence mathematically precise test jury’s finding support the verdict sexu- ple ‘hostile’ an environment say that whether only by look al harassment. be determined can or ‘abusive’ Harris v. the circumstances.” ing at all — U.S. - , -, Inc., Systems, Forklift Cross-Appeal II. (1993). 126 L.Ed.2d 114 S.Ct. pre Damages Trial on totality of the circumstances for a New A. Motion
From
case,
easily
jury could
have
in this
sented
court’s deni
appeals the trial
Plaintiff
environment
that an actionable hostile
found
59(a)
trial on
for a new
her Rule
motion
al of
existed.
59(a)
reviewing a Rule
mo
damages. When
only
trial court and
Ster-
defer to the
argue that because
tion we
Defendants
its discretion.
the hos
if the court has abused
which created
reverse
acts
man’s individual
to find the
this case is
we would have
clear
upon
To do so
tile environment
against
ver
“equally
weight
offensive”
of the evidence
been
would have
based
Corp., 6
Rail
women,
support
Scaggs
a Title
they
dict.
Consolidated
cannot
men or
(7th Cir.1993).
long before
ponder
F.3d
We need
VII claim.
hope
argument. One
disposing of this
in back
jury awarded
offended”
“equally
would be
that men
Plaintiff asserts that
pay.
pay and no front
Hutchison and
of Ms.
treatment
Sterman’s
puts her lost back
undisputed
evidence
That conduct
employees.
female
his other
$120,000, assuming she
at more than
*7
sensibilities
the
enough to offend
egregious
promised raises and
not have received
would
to
cannot serve
as
as well
women
of men
fringe
including
benefits
not
bonuses
purposes.
it for Title VII
immunize
(which
jury
have included
the
was to
instructions).
according to their
award
reality
that sexual
to claim
It blinks
more than
replacement earned
Plaintiffs
by man in a
a
demeans women
conduct
$147,000
salary
between Jan-
and bonuses
at a
not directed
power,
even if
position
31,
Plaintiff
1,
1993.
uary
and March
victim,
impacts male
equally
specific woman
way
jury could
only
have
that the
asserts
disparate ef
This
subordinates.3
and female
by finding
figure was
at the
arrived
discriminatory
in a hostile
element
is the
fect
damages, and
mitigate her
she failed to
that
Moreover,
directed
Sterman
environment.
wrong.
his
Whatever
is also
men and women”
erroneously
that this
claims
3.
concurrence
The
attributes,
apparently hetero-
a
is not
Sterman
“[t]his
because
other
is irrelevant
observation
Therefore,
by the sexual
comment on men's
men are
did not
where
offended
sexual.
he
case
money
Defen-
coworkers."
anatomy,
of their female
men
harassment
did he offer
dress and
nor
however,
dants,
argument
precisely this
themselves,
make
attempt
to
did he
expose
nor
Ms. Pe-
treatment of
respect
Sterman’s
with
they passed between cabi-
against them as
brush
ters,
"Ms. Boobs”:
to as
whom he referred
nets,
pin
in at their desks.
did
them
nor
he
exposed
have been
women would
men and
"Both
Sterman treated
that
do not claim
Defendants
and Ms.
Sterman
banter between Mr.
to the
They
instead
claim
women the same.
men and
and, therefore,
to be-
is no reason
there
Peters
things to
done these
men
had
that if Sterman
Hutchison,
a
she is wom-
that Ms.
because
lieve
(Br.
equally offended
they
have been
would
an,
a
any
offended than
would have been
20, 21, 23).
conjecture
neither relevant
This
have been.” Br.
man
defense.
nor a
that "here much
The concurrence's claim
demeaning
equally
at issue was
conduct
ison,
support
evidence does not
such
experienced
a
an
manager
per
office
with
failure.
background,
sonnel
diligently
did not act
by
failing
temporary
to utilize
or full-time em
A
presumptive
Title VII victim is
ployment
specializing
services
in placing per
ly entitled to
Paper
full relief. Albemarle
skills, especially
sons with her
period
as her
405, 421,
Moody,
Co. v.
422 U.S.
95 S.Ct.
unemployment
years.”
exceeded several
2362, 2373,
plaintiff
1045 the also contends Plaintiff presented that Ster- Testimony was rate. failing pay. The jury in to award front erred high sala- in the form “generosity” man’s pre-1991 pay under the availability of front buy to was meant large bonuses ries and open question this Circuit. an in Act remains plain- gist his behavior. The for tolerance Extel/JWP, Inc., 330, 332 Tobey v. “premi- this is that because argument tiffs available, (7th Cir.1993). if But even the norm, she salary the above elevated her um” in not abuse its discretion court did district comparable duty take otherwise no to had jury could have finding that a reasonable market rate. paid at the jobs which present in case. award front failed to testimony by expert of [de “Persuaded that a rea found The district court reasonably jury may expert], the fendants’ that “as it concluded jury have sonable could a date termination have set between that, level given her skill to her clear became Hutchison, using rea Ms. judgment an identi not demand training, she could ‘compa diligence, should have found sonable in the mar position salary for the same cal adjusted time.” employment, as over rable’ adjust duty] her em ket, to [her failed she Hutchison, F.Supp. The district 840 at 629. Hutchi accordingly.” expectations ployment explain of the on that because court went wheth son, The issue is F.Supp. at 629. calculating the value uncertainty present in in abused discretion district court its er the discrepancy the obtain future between jury within the acted determining that salary at plaintiffs wage and able market Was implicit this conclusion. reaching law in AES, concluded jury properly could have “premium to subtract free candle. We not worth that the effort was comparable determining what was abuse” trial court’s agree with the conclusion: relied on The district employment? court discussion reasonable light of our earlier prop in a footnote for noncommittal dicta plain jury may have determined simply notion adjust must her a plaintiff osition that any premium future not tiff was entitled extended employment after comparable longer subject to Ster no because she was v. job States searches. United unsuccessful thus did The trial court maris abuse. 572, n. 3 Chicago, 853 F.2d City of denying plaintiffs abuse its discretion EEOC, Cir.1988) Motor Co. v. (citing Ford 59(a) on dam for a new trial Rule motion 3057, 16, n. 102 S.Ct. 458 U.S. ages. 721). not over L.Ed.2d This n. Nonetheless, dis authority. whelming 59(e) to Amend Motion Rule B. Plaintiffs concluding that the correct trict court was Full Relief Judgment Grant above properly have excluded jury could a motion to amend filed Plaintiff paid plaintiff premium that Sterman market 59(e). The district Rule judgment under comparable employment. defining plaintiffs re as to the motion court denied relief, reinstatement, injunctive quest for purpose of Title VII The remedial interest, granted re they have “where place the victims attorneys’ fees costs and quest for reasonable unlawful discrimina it not for the been were $67,538.88. ap Plaintiff amount of in the (1972), quoted in Cong.Rec. 7168 tion.” 118 rulings. We review these peals all of Moody, 422 U.S. Paper Co. Albemarle *9 rulings for abuse of discretion. court’s 2362, 421, A 2373. reasonable 95 S.Ct. from evidence have concluded could 1. Reinstatement discrimination, unlawful absent Stermaris Reinstatement, usually although market” “in the plaintiff have been would required. remedy, always at is not wages preferred she received premium because F.2d Corp., 973 Motors McKnight toleration v. General were continued AES tied Cir.1992). (7th is decision 1366, Comparable nonabusive 1370 abuse. Stermaris of the dis consigned at to the sound discretion compensated be employment then would 1369, court, should duty id. rate, a trict plaintiff had and the market result would “where the grant reinstatement accept it. seek 1046 controversy.” may
be
undue
friction
betrayed
long-
statement
have
less than
McKnight
AES,
Corp.,
v. General Motors
908 F.2d
term devotion to
but the
court
district
(7th Cir.1990).
104,
may
115
jumped
quickly
equating
have
too
this
strategic
buyout.
with the threat of a
forced
ease,
In
a
number of consider Moreover,
having
job
if
a
is a benefit in
ations led the district court to conclude that
another,
seeking
plaintiff
it is a benefit
inappropriate.
reinstatement would
be
enjoyed
have
but for her unlawful termi-
First,
small, closely
because AES is a
held
nation, and thus not inconsistent with the
(Sterman
owner),
organization
is the 100%
make-whole nature of Title VII remedies.
reinstatement would be difficult for the court
Despite these reservations over the district
degree
to administer because of “the
of inter
interpretation
plaintiffs testimony,
court’s
required among
action
employees.” Pl.App.
grounds
because there were sufficient other
Sterman,
Though
primary wrong
49.
relied,
upon which the district court
it did not
doer,
leave,
is on indefinite medical
he re
finding
abuse its discretion in
reinstatement
(who
mains the sole owner and his brother
inappropriate.
was on the other end of defendant Sterman’s
conversations)
phone
salacious
now runs the
Prejudgment
interest
business.
Prejudgment
interest
is an element
The court also cited friction and ani
complete
compensation and a normal inci
mosity which
developed
plaintiff
has
between
dent of relief under Title VII.
v.
Loeffler
management.
employ
AES
While mere
Frank,
549, 558,
1965,
486 U.S.
108 S.Ct.
hostility developed during litigation
er
cannot
1971,
Handy Button Mach.
was
continuing until
she
mination and
Cir.1987)
(“The
award of back
i.e. market,
job
have left the
deemed to
‘equitable’ rather than a
under Title VII is an
post-termination
total
date
however,
‘legal’remedy,
and the common law
$80,000. This
earnings would have been
certainty
ap
requirement of
has never been
inter
obviously give her the maximum
would
it.”).
plied to
minimum
would result
est. The
interest
question
correct
for the district
pro-rata
treating
from
as earned
discretion,
court, assuming it has
is whether
judgment
every year from termination
jury’s
uncertainty introduced
find
accordingly on an annual
calculating interest
mitigate
suffices to
ing
partial
failure
judge’s discretion
It
the trial
basis.
is within
prejudg
presumption in favor of
defeat the
meth
these calculational
to choose between
given
fact that
it
“[w]ithout
ment interest
It is
any other reasonable method.
ods or
incomplete
is
compensation of the
the district court’s discretion
not within
delay.”
an incentive to
and the defendant has
deny
award of interest because
the whole
Gorenstein,
prejudgment interest unavailable whenever Smith v. Great American (7th Restaurants, Inc., mitigate partial finds a failure to or 969 F.2d 439 Cir.1992) anything exactly what quoting Sheedy, otherwise awards but Tomazzoli v. 804 (7th Cir.1986). sys- plaintiff seeks. Such a rule would F.2d 97 The district tematically deny plaintiffs full relief under above-quoted explanations court’s for its 10% reaching Title VII. cut further subtractions in its and drastically figure reduced lodestar are insuf- Attorneys’ 3. fees expression general ficient. of The court’s accompanied by seemingly concerns arbi- attorneys’ sought Plaintiff fees and costs trary cuts in billable hours is neither fair to prevailing party a under Title Plain- as VIL litigants appropriate nor an basis for mean- $122,124.87 delineating in tiff filed affidavits Second, ingful appellate and review. objected expenses. fees and Defendants to important, “plaintiffs counsel is entitled to of the reasonableness the bill but did not signifi- be heard on the matter before such a specifically challenge any provisions. of its in cant reduction hours is made nonetheless, The district court without the (citations Smith, court.” 969 F.2d hearing, benefit of a reduced the amount omitted). $67,538.88. by plaintiff recoverable began by cutting proposed court 10% of the In her brief asserts that her coun- plaintiffs spent fee for the time counsel on essentially practitioner sel was a sole with her unsuccessful ADEA claim. The court only part-time associates and law clerks dur- unnecessary, duplica- then subtracted “other true, ing litigation. much of this If the dis- tive, charges light or unreasonable of the top- trict court’s reduction for what it saw as case, straightforward factual nature of this heavy staffing cannot be sustained. Similar- discovery (although lack of intense battles ly, plaintiff claims that her counsel did not the defendant was twice sanctioned for rela- normally paralegal sup- bill clients for and tively benign transgressions) clear and ab- port staff hours and thus did not include complex legal Pl.App. sence of issues.” 53. so, request. them in his fee If the district $78,538.88 figure The result was a lodestar court’s further subtraction for uti- failure to representing attorney a cut hours from support lize staff is also unfounded. Plaintiff proceeded 843.75 to 536.2. The court given her counsel should have been an figure further in this make cuts lodestar opportunity arguments make these based on the factors delineated in v. Johnson district court before reductions were made. Inc., Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d oppose Counsel who a fees have “re (5th Cir.1974). The court trimmed $3000 sponsibility objections particu to state with unnecessary for what it considered written larity clarity.” Ohio-Sealy Mattress regarding evidentiary motions in limine is- Inc., Mfg. Sealy Co. v. sues, paralegals for failure to utilize $5000 Cir.1985). When, case, as defense staff, support and other for the $3000 so, counsel fails to do the district court seemingly high partner to 2 ratio by denying should not reward the defendants Pl.App. associate hours. 54. plaintiffs opportunity counsel an to de The amount of fee awards is left against specific challenges, fend his claim to the discretion of the district court because whatever their source. Because of the dis “superior understanding litiga its hearing trict court’s failure to conduct a desirability tion and the avoiding frequent insufficiency explanation its of its lode appellate essentially review of fac what are star calculation we remand for a new fee Eckerhart, Hensley tual matters.” 461 award. 424, 437, 1933, 1941, U.S. 103 S.Ct. must, nevertheless, L.Ed.2d We remand CONCLUSION First,
for a new award this case. a “dis may trict arbitrarily court reduce the We affirm the district court’s denial of requested; number of hours if it judgment reduces defendants’ renewed motion for as provide hours it should a ‘concise but clear plaintiffs matter of law and its denial of *12 damages. age case as an discrimination for a new trial on We suit. Hutchin- motion re- son did not succeed on that claim. There- denial of reinstatement but affirm the fore, any attorney’s she was not prejudg- of entitled to and remand on the denial verse stemming prosecution fees from the of and remand the ment interest. We also reverse age Finally, discrimination claim. while it attorneys’ award of fees with instructions might be difficult to sustain a cut-off of what evidentiary an that the trial court hold hear- top-heavy the district court staffing saw as ing plaintiffs in which counsel can defend charges, may appropriate some reduction be proposed against the district court’s cuts. charged
so that the fees
are reasonable in
MANION,
light
complexity
of the
of
concurring.
per-
the tasks
Judge,
Circuit
formed.
join
disposition
I
the court
its
Finally, this is a closer case on the merits
discussed,
empha-
several issues
but wish to
implies.
than
court
Hutchinson worked
points.
size a few
twenty years.
at Amateur Electronic for over
Handy
In
Button Mach.
Williamson
Spreading
complained-of
conduct over
Co.,
Cir.1987),
1297-99
817 F.2d
period
negates
this extended
of time
the district court’s denial
this court reversed
severity
pervasiveness portrayed by
so,
prejudgment
doing
In
we
of
interest.
court. She did not
define
environment
may
be de-
noted
interest
years
she worked
as hostile until after
readily
nied because it is not
determinable.
Moreover, Sterman,
she was fired.
a 400- to
However,
in Williamson we reasoned
man,
500-pound
behaved towards all of his
properly
interest could be
determined under
boorish,
employees in a
rude and obnoxious
and, therefore,
at least two methods
the dis-
equally
manner. Much of his behavior was
denying prejudgment
in-
trict court erred in
women,
demeaning
making
to men and
thus
Similarly,
terest.
as the court in this case
charges
sexual harassment
doubtful. Rabi
forth,
period represented by
sets
the time
Co.,
Refining
due v. Osceola
805 F.2d
$80,000
verdict
is determinable under
(6th Cir.i986) (“instances
complained-
and, therefore, prejudgment in-
two methods
prove equally
of sexual conduct that
offensive
appropriate. Although
terest is
we reach the
sup
to male and female workers would not
here,
emphasize
I
correct result
some port
charge
a Title VII sexual harassment
underlying
damage
cases the facts
award
both men and women
accorded
because
were
may make the determination of interest
too
treatment”);
like
Ebert v. Lamar Truck Pla
complex and it is then within the trial court’s
(10th Cir.1989)
za,
(rough
F.2d
deny prejudgment
discretion to
interest.
language
indiscriminately by
male
used
both
(“[i]f
Williamson,
sive *13 on a hos employment, for her to succeed Meritor Sav claim.
tile work environment Vinson, 57, 67, 106 477 U.S.
ings Bank v. (1986). 2399, 2405, L.Ed.2d 49
S.Ct.
Nonetheless, we owe a given the deference were sufficient to
jury, presented facts as
affirm this case. reasons, respectfully I concur.
For these VOELKER,
In the Matter of Mitchell W.
Debtor-Appellant.
No. 94-2271. Appeals, United States Court Ellisen, Allen, Gary R. William S. R. Bruce Seventh Circuit. Estabrook, Dept, (argued), Alice L. Ronk Div., Section, Justice, Appellate Tax Wash- Argued Nov. 1994. DC, ington, appellee. for Decided Dec. 1994. (ar- Goyke Byrne, George Terrence J. Wausau, WI, debtor-appellant.
gued), FLAUM, CUMMINGS, Before ROVNER, Judges. Circuit FLAUM, Judge. Circuit debtor, Voelker, appealed Mitchell holding a decision of the District Court from (“IRS”) Revenue Service’s the Internal personal property to his tax lien extended § levy exempt from under U.S.C. affirm. We I. voluntary Chapter
Mitchell Voelker filed
bankruptcy petition
July
1992. On
on
19,1992,
proof
filed a
of a
November
IRS
delinquent
claim for
taxes
secured
$27,736, covering
years
amount of
objected
through 1989. Voelker
to this
Rabidue,
coworkers;
rather,
harassment.
here
not constitute sexual
ment
much of the conduct at issue was
their female
equally
620; Ebert,
de-