Adrienne C. Corti v. Storage Technology Corporation

converted evidence Pauley participat- Before WIDENER GREGORY, ed in a drug crime involving at least 56 Circuit Judges, and CYNTHIA grams of methamphetamine, Pauley’s HALL, HOLCOMB Senior Circuit Judge sentence did not exceed the maximum al- of the States United Court of Appeals for lowable 841(b)(1)(B),we affirm his Circuit, the Ninth sitting by designation. original sentence. We prior leave our panel opinion intact Prior panel opinion modified and district in all respects. other court judgment by published affirmed It is so ordered. PER opinion. CURIAM OPINION

PER CURIAM. Wayne Pauley Overton was indicted for Adrienne CORTI, C. Plaintiff-Appellee, and convicted of a drug offense. He ap pealed his conviction and we vacated and STORAGE TECHNOLOGY in part remanded part, affirmed in CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. published opinion. United States v. Pau ley, No. F.3d 254 01-1833. We now grant appellee’s petition and, for rehearing United States Court Appeals, after having had the benefit of briefing and Fourth Circuit. dispensing with argument, oral modify our Argued April 3, 2002. prior opinion, in light of the United States Decided Sept. Supreme Court decision in United States Cotton, L.Ed.2d (2002), so as to affirm the

sentence we previously vacated.

50(a) motion as a matter of law and that jury’s award of punitive damages cannot stand without an award of compensatory damages.1 Finding er-_ no ror, we affirm.

I. In Adrienne Corti by was hired Stephen ARGUED: Silvestri, Michael StorageTek aas Financial Man- Services P.C., Baltimore, Miles & Stockbridge, Ma- (FSM) ager in its Spring, Silver Maryland ryland, for Defendant-Appellant. Patricia StorageTek office. is a Colorado-based Smith, Ann Law Offices of Patricia A. company manufactures, sells and ser- Smith, Alexandria, Virginia, for Plaintiff- storage vices devices for mainframe and Appellee. ON BRIEF: Suzzanne W. systems. network computer As a FSM Decker, P.C., & Stockbridge, Miles Balti- StorageTek’s Federal Systems Division, more, Maryland, Defendant-Appellant. Corti worked with representatives sales to structure respond transactions and NIEMEYER, KING, to fed- Before eral bids. She GREGORY, engaged in negotia- Judges. price Circuit tions and structuring, lease and worked by Affirmed published opinion. Judge quota towards a that was based in part on wrote the opinion, GREGORY in which sales revenue. Corti received a base sala- Judge joined. KING Judge NIEMEYER ry, along with commissions and bonuses. a concurring opinion. wrote Corti quota met her year her first StorageTek. In her year, second she OPINION met quota her and was ranked the number GREGORY, Circuit Judge. one FSM the region. Mid-Atlantic For this, she became part of StorageTek’s Adrienne brought Corti pursuant suit Club,” “Master’s and was rewarded with a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of trip to Hawaii. not only Corti 2000(e) §§ 42 U.S.C. et seq., against Stor- ranked number one in her region, she was age Technology Corporation (StorageTek) StorageTek’s top FSM the entire Unit- gender based employment discrimina- ed States and Canada. tion after she was A jury demoted.

turned a Corti, verdict in favor of award- Despite ability her to meet and exceed ing her in punitive damages, quota, but Corti problems encountered at Sto- no compensatory damages. appeal, On rageTek, most stemming from her interac- alia, argues, inter tions with District Sales Manager Edwin district court erred in denying its Rule Hartman. Though she reported directly also asserts Bank, Signet Montreal v. admitting erred substantial amount We also no abuse of non-probative evidence this evi- discretion in the court’s pay, award of back prejudiced dence jury. Appellant’s Open- Ctr., see Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Medical Brief, ing Inc., thoroughly After reviewing 32-34. (4th Cir.2002); Brady record, law, applicable Lines, and the exten- v. Thurston Motor sive briefs parties, submitted Cir.1985), and hav- or in its pre ing had argument, the benefit of interest, oral we find Frank, Maksymchuk see no abuse of discretion the court’s Cir.1993), admis- and we evidence, challenged sion of the see Bank decline to address these issues further. for Mikkel- make room FSM, position her it or Mikkelsen, regional to Curt sen. closely to work necessary for Corti representa- his sales Hartman with Sys- in the Federal three FSMs theOf established evidence The Division, only tives.2 woman. was the Corti tems well with communicate did not FSMs, Hartman Bill Tignor and Greg two other im- her about inform He failed positions. Rowan, Corti. their FSM retained key ac- withheld and he meetings evalu- portant performance her told that he told Corti Hartman her demotion.4 information. reason for count were the ations equal Silk, a woman evaluations, with were worked reviewed never had These having Mikkelsen, women with Hartman’s before, was used and he prepared func- number was ranked After one off-site Corti input.5 him. While working for supervi- her play region, went to and team tion, FSM her part of one when nation- top be a FSM wom- and another knew she would sors Hartman told Corti golf, Rowan had Tignor go and ally should both they representative sales meeting problems thing.” consistently experienced a “guy was golf because shopping and Rowan Tignor time only The Mik- quota. Hartman to about complaints Cortfs of- company was when the quota ears. reached deaf fell on Bob Silk and kelsen relief. quota fered met with and Hartman late Silk In filed a com Corti February of had position her inform her to Corti the United StorageTek in against plaint informed Corti Silk eliminated. been of for the District Court District States posi- her her from to remove decision aris sex discrimination Maryland, alleging reorganization. of part was tion to demote StorageTek’s decision of ing out confused, accepted Corti and Shocked discovery, Storage- extensive After her. Representative Sales Service Customer and summary judgment, moved Tek was (CSSR) presented which position, motion. granted court district with the remain only option her her reversed, finding and we appealed, Corti company.3 wrong applied court Douglas the McDonnell was position that her standard later learned Corti framework, that sum and burden-shifting aof Because to Curt Mikkelsen. given because improper mary judgment restructuring, Mikkelsen’s company-wide pre evidence sufficient produced eliminat- had Corti been position FSM regional dispute. a material fact place Mikkelsen text to move had decided ed. Silk Corp., Technology Storage that one Corti meant which position, a FSM into curiam) (cit Cir.1999) (per his F.3d lose would current FSMs the three allegedly were evaluations performance 4. The reported to and Mikkelsen Hartman 2. Both (quota attain- objective standards based Silk, Fed- for the regional Vice President Bob ment), subjective stan- more as on as well Division Systems eral dards, skills. communication such as demotion, clearly a position was 3. The new oth- evidence presented substantial Corti Corti had compensation and status. both Silk, CSSR, discriminatory Mikkelsen acts sales, er and as experience in no Silk and StorageTek conceded Her Hartman. supervisor. direct was her Hartman re- continued, decision-makers were Mikkelsen and Cor- with Hartman problems position. The from her FSM moval of a different voluntarily sought a transfer to ti also a deci- Hartman was question of whether ultimately terminated She was division. jury. left to sion-maker performance. poor ing Green, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. order denying StorageTek’s motion. Stor- 36 age timely Tek noted appeal. its (1973)). L.Ed.2d 668 proceeded ease trial in Janu- II. ary of 2001. At the case, close of Cortfs StorageTek argues that the court moved for pursuant 50(a) in denying erred its Rule motion for 50(a), to Rule asserting that Corti had not judgment as a matter of law. It does not presented legally evidentiary sufficient dispute that Corti prima established a fa basis on which to her favor. The cie case for gender discrimination.6 Rath court denied the motion. er, it asserts that Corti “present did not newed its motion at the close of all the evidence that evidence, StorageTek’s stated again reason denied the (to for the RIF [reduction motion. in force] down size and eliminate a layer management) The jury returned a verdict in favor of was false and that the real reason was her Corti, awarding her compensatory dam- $0 gender.” StorageTek misstates Corti’s burden. Corti was required not to show After briefing and further argument, the that StorageTek’s reason for eliminating a judge district order, issued a judgment layer of management was a pretext, which included the she jury’s verdict and an required was $410,974.63 to show that the given in back excuse pre- and judgment choosing (her interest. her for a demotion per moved to formance) alter or judgment amend the was pursuant pretext a to for discriminat 59(e), Rule challenging the district ion.7 See Rummery court’s v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., calculation of back 553, (7th Cir.2001) (ex On 250 interest. F.3d 557 May 23, 2001, the district court issued an plaining that “even if a reduction in force 6. prima To establish a gender facie case for Hajoca Corp., (4th Herold.v. 864 F.2d 319 (RIF) discrimination in a reduction in force Cir.1988)). context, plaintiff 1) a show must that was she VII, protected 2) under Title she was selected framework, Under the Douglas McDonnell candidates, larger 3) group from a was she plaintiff once the prima establishes a facie performing at a substantially equivalent level discrimination, case the defendant must to the lowest level of that in group the respond with evidence that it acted with a tained, 4) process the pro- of selection legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. See duced a residual force work that contained Motel, Inc., Murrell v. Ocean Mecca 262 F.3d unprotected some persons perform- who were (4th Cir.2001) 257 (citing Mary's St. ing at a level lower than that at which the Hicks, 502, 506-07, Honor Ctr. v. 509 U.S. plaintiff performing. was See Mitchell v. Data (1993)). 125 L.Ed.2d 407 If Corp., (4th Gen. Cir.1993). the defendant makes this showing, plain- the Mikkelsen, male, though Even a was moved present must then tiff prove evidence to that position into a FSM regional his when FSM the defendant’s articulated pre- reason was a eliminated, position was seemingly replacing text for unlawful Corti, discrimination. Id. Al- this is a nevertheless force reduction though evidentiary the Thus, burdens shift back and case. showing rather than that she was forth under the man, Douglas McDonnell replaced by frame- a required to work, the "ultimate burden persons persuading demonstrate that the outside protect- the trier of fact ed that class "were the defendant intentionally position retained the same against or that there discriminated plaintiff the some other remains at evidence the employer all [gender] did not times with plaintiff.” neutrally” (citing treat Id. Texas deciding Dep’t. Cmty. Burdine, her demote over one of the v. Affairs 248, 253, other two male FSMs. Corp., Tuck v. Henkel 101 S.Ct. 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (4th Cir.1992) (1981)). n. (citing (i.e. properly de- cordingly, an district simply legitimate is otherwise judgment motion for workers), StorageTek’s nied a [female] terminate excuse a matter of law. showing pretext by may establish plaintiff for includ- given reasons specific III. pretextu- reduction were ing [her] StorageTek further contends al.”). because the error occurred here grant should A district court dam awarded Corti of law as a matter motion compensatory it awarded her no ages, but party “if a has been trial during It asserts is no and there fully heard on issue support puni required are evidentiary basis for legally sufficient cases, in Title VII damage tive award party find for that jury to reasonable jury failed to follow the district court’s 50(a). Judg issue.” Fed.R.Civ.P. damages instruction. Because only appropriate matter of law is ment as a these issues be StorageTek failed raise most if, light the evidence viewing court, allega- trial fore the review non-moving party, to the favorable plain only. Taylor of error for error tions trier of that “a reasonable court concludes Virginia University, Union conclusion from only one fact could draw Cir.1999) (en banc) (citing Transporta Brown v. CSX the evidence.” Owens-Illinois, Rapid Corp. Am. Inc. tion, (In Celotex), 630-31 re denial of reviewing a district court’s When Cir.1997)). Before we can exercise our 50(a) motion, applies the this court a Rule an error not raised discretion to correct Id. de novo. same standards case, minimum, in a civil at a the below Olano, requirements of United States evidence here demonstrated 725, 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 507 113 S.Ct. U.S. FSM, a top producer that Corti was (1993), Id. at 239- must be satisfied. 508 the consistently outperformed she Olano, Thus, Tek must Storage 40. posi retained their two male FSMs who 1) 2) error, the error there is an show would superiors knew she tions. Corti’s 3) the error affects substantial plain, is nation profitable most FSMs be one of the 4) seriously affects the error rights, and may Though company in wide 1995. fairness, reputation integrity public or the on employee to demote an base its decision Olano, at 507 U.S. judicial proceedings. of factors, evalua employee of the a number Here, we 113 1770. because allegedly used Silk tions that were error, meet StorageTek no cannot were based decision to demote Corti his the test. prong the first of Olano even input manag of two subjective on the part with problems to have ers who were shown punitive dam The issue of whether most favorable light any the of women.8 awarded in the absence ages can be Corti, that Stor one of the evidence established in a Title VII case is damages actual demo reason for her circuit. Because age proffered impression Tek’s this first trial credence,” at see Bur- are satisfied that the evidence “unworthy of tion was dam support punitive dine, and was sufficient at 101 S.Ct. 450 U.S. award9 and because Ac- pretext for discrimination. therefore 5; see, I, ante, 339, Rights Act of Before the Civil e.g., 199 9. n. 8. See VII. As damages under Title testimony were unavailable (describing deposition 1326 F.3d enactments, Congress added testimony part of the 1991 substantially la- similar to witness allowing plaintiffs to trial). provision Title VII at ter admitted back based on the demonstrate actionable harm.” (citing awarded Corti Id. liability, we find no finding error jury’s Kircher, A. James Ghiardi & John J. Pu- punitive damages award to allowing Practice, Damages: § nitive Law and 5.37 stand.10 (1985 Supp.1993)). We stated that “to hold otherwise would create a windfall opinions is in accord with holding Our allowing recovery of damages when no First, and Eleventh Circuits. Seventh harm actionable has been suffered.” Id. Pharmacy, v. CVS Provencher See The crucial People difference between (1st Cir.1998); Hennessy Helpers and the at case hand is that Peo- Networks, Inc., 69 F.3d Penril Datacomm ple Helpers involved a suit under the Fair Cir.1995); EEOC v. W & Act, which, VII, Housing unlike Title does O, Inc., provision not contain a an do, recognized, circuits have as we These pay.11 back We find that a loss of income plain nothing language due to discrimination amounts “action- an award of 1981a conditions able harm.” damages underlying award of com pensatory damages. Hennessy, 69 Title pay remedy VU’s back is “a ‘make- remedy whole’ compensato resembles heavily ry damages respects.” some Landgraf relies on this court’s Found., Products, in People Helpers decision Inc. v. v. USI Film Richmond, Cir.1993), 12 F.3d 1321 1483, 128 (1994); 114 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 229 see punitive damages where we held that are also Albemarle Paper Moody, Co. v. Fair Housing recoverable under the 405, 418-22, 95 S.Ct. 45 L.Ed.2d Act, seq., U.S.C. 3601 et when com- (1975). While the awarded Corti pensatory damages have not been award- no damages, after Finders, In People panel ed. noted found liable for unlawful dis majority prohibit that a states puni- crimination, the district court awarded tive when a fact finder fails to Corti over back and inter compensatory damages. award Id. at est. J.A. 1046. It that explained reasoning sup- 1327. the compensatory Unlike porting damages at com- majority this rule is “the belief law, punitive compensatory that mon damages appropriate damages are not under in cases plaintiff where a has failed to 1981a are defined to omit back pay, punitive damages recover when it is considering shown the defendant’s financial condi- employer engaged that the defendant prevent in inten repetition? tion to future Does the tional discrimination with "malice or with damages amount of have a reason- federally protected reckless indifference to the relationship damages able to the actual rights” plaintiff. the 42 U.S.C. awarded?” J.A. 768. We do not read this a(b)(1); § 1981 Anderson v. G.D.C. specific 281 instruction as a jury command to the (4th Cir.2002) (citing 459 Kolstad v. punitive damages it could not award Ass’n, Thus,

Am. Dental awarding 119 without first actual (1999)). S.Ct. 144 L.Ed.2d 494 accept StorageTek’s we do not contention that did not follow the district court's instruction. judge 10. The distiict instructed the that if punitive damages it determined appro- were amount, priate, fixing prevailing it plaintiff "should con- 11. A in a Title VII case is following questions: sider the How offensive pay. entitled to back See U.S.C. 2000e- was the conduct? 5(g). What amount is needed exceptional or the issue unless there are economic dam- obvious “the most which is extraordinary justifying circumstances Hen- discharge case.” wrongful age in Assurance Co. v. oc- view. See Canada at 1352. The omission 69 F.3d nessy, Life Lebowitz, Estate double prevent 1991 Act to curs under the Cir.1999) (holding compa- insurance Landgraf, 511 U.S. recovery. See reason, ny’s specific interpretation the court failure to raise For this calculating at trial resulted a waiver of jury that of contract “[i]n instructed any wages argument appeal); not consider its United States damages, you may (4th Cir.1994) Vanhorn, lost. may have that Ms. Corti or benefits should ar- pay (finding physician of lost or benefits had waived her The award hable, will be deter- partial you gument that she was entitled be- J.A. 767. We mined the Court.” for her service under the National credit clearly pay the award of back Corps program lieve because Health Service injury.12 that Corti suffered establishes this issue before the she “did not raise a similar below, awards serve Because back and has not agency or the awards, damage compensatory purpose any exceptional circumstances pointed mantra” that “familiar tort now”); it justifying our consideration of in the ab- may not be assessed damages Int’l, Inc., Inc. v. Skippy, CPC will not compensatory Cir.1982) (“In sence of the absence of case. See Hennes- this aid circumstances, not exceptional questions cases, a In Title VII F.3d at 1352.13 sy, 69 properly preserved trial raised damage award will stand jury’s punitive appeal”); noticed on forum will be dam- in the absence Co., even v. Pa. Millers Mut. Ins. Malbon has been awarded. Cir.1980) if back (explaining 940-41 raise all requiring parties

reasons IV. concluding “[i]t at trial and arguments raised elementary that an issue not be- is reasons, we affirm the foregoing For not, extraordinary circum- will absent low district court. judgment of the stances, appeal”). ... considered on be AFFIRMED. necessary criterion meets the When case extraordinariness, then exceptionality or NIEMEYER, concurring. Judge, Circuit it analyze may notice the error what, clarify I con- separately I write standard that we plain-error clude, explain in Part III and to we hold court. The for the apply opinion judgment reached there. my support of the fails, however, to address opinion court’s review, for our consid- necessary prerequisite this respect to the standard With raised that was not of an issue circuit that when eration it the law of this remains may case the issue this a below. While action fails to raise to a civil party exception- meet the a candidate to trial, of well be party waives review point at offered, without an award survives even nor can has not find, damages Progressive Treat- punitive pay. v. Steel any reason to disallow See Timm back court, Cir.1998); jury, (7th is merely not the because the ing, 137 F.3d awarding pay responsible for back Corp., 271 v. Adchem see also Cush-Crawford statutory scheme. Cir.2001). (2d Because back hand, we case at awarded in the Hennessy, went the Seventh Circuit 13. After today. question reach this need not further, damage holding punitive that a criterion, ality rights or extraordinariness of an aggrieved individual.” 42 opinion 1981a(b)(l). fact that the court’s § does not ex U.S.C. provision That does it cannot plicitly address, address be construed as other, way one or the whether overruling precedent prior panel set the common-law rule —that compensatory Only of this court. an en bane decision damages must be proved as a condition that. could do See Mentavlos punitive an award of damages applies. — Anderson, 249 F.3d 312 n. 4 does, however, Section 1981a remove from Jarvis, Cir.2001); Bell v. jury’s consideration compensatory (4th Cir.2000) (en banc). damages any award for “backpay.” See 1981a(b)(2). § U.S.C. provision This punitive-dam-

On the substance of the necessary to avoid recovery double issue, ages I separately clarify write our backpay because U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(1) holding punitive damages appro- are Landgraf already provided backpay. See priate in this Title VII they case because Prods., USI Film accompany an award of wages. lost Such v. (1994); 114 S.Ct. 128 L.Ed.2d 229 holding is accordance with the com- Provencher, 11; 145 F.3d at Hennessy v. rule,

mon-law to which we continue to Networks, Inc., Penril Datacomm cases, punitive adhere Title VII Cir.1995). Thus, under the damages appropriate are not they unless scheme VII, established under Title accompany compensatory damages. backpay, awards jury case, this awarded Corti awards compensatory other $100,000 punitive damages, but no com- The fact that the separates statute these court, pensatory damages. however, factfinding responsibilities sug- does not awarded Corti more than in back- gest that Congress general abolished the and interest. argues that requirement that some form of compensa- Corti is not entitled to the punitive dam- tory damages be awarded before award because the did not award damages be awarded. her compensatory damages. argu- This general ment on the puni- rests rule that Indeed, backpay compensa- awards are damages prohibited tive are in the absence tory are, fact, in nature and “the most See, of compensatory damages. e.g., Peo obvious damages economic in wrongful Found., ple Richmond, Helpers Inc. v. 12 discharge Hennessy, case.” 69 F.3d at 1321, 1327 Cir.1993); Provencher 1352; see also Landgraf, 511 (1st Pharmacy, CVS 114 S.Ct. 1483 (recognizing that backpay the rule While is established “is a ‘make-whole’ remedy that resembles one, StorageTek’s argument in appli fails damages some respects”). holding cation. Our may re case, In this Corti was not awarded com- ceive damages grounded is on the pensatory damages as damages those are fact that the district court awarded her 1981a, defined in but she was awarded lost wages, and we do gen not violate the compensate her for the loss of eral rule that punitive damages must be resulting income employer’s from her dis- supported by compensatory damages in so criminatory tactics. Because Corti re- holding. backpay ceived a award compensating her

Title VII authorizes for her wages, lost she received “compen- when a defendant against satory discriminates damages” thereby became au- plaintiff “with malice or with reckless thorized to receive punitive damages in the indifference to the federally protected prescribed circumstances by Title VII. clarifications, I am these With modest to concur.

pleased LIFE PENN-PACIFIC

FIRST COMPANY,

INSURANCE

Plaintiff-Appellant, Mary- EVANS, Chartered; R.

William Services Cor- First Financial

land Defendants-Appellees.

poration, Commission,

Maryland Securities Curiae.

Amicus 01-2218.

No. Appeals, Court

United States

Fourth Circuit. 7,May

Argued 18, 2002. Sept.

Decided

Case Details

Case Name: Adrienne C. Corti v. Storage Technology Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 18, 2002

Citation: 304 F.3d 336

Docket Number: 01-1833

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.