KEITH WARD, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, Defendant – Appellant. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Amicus Supporting Appellee. KEITH WARD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, Defendant – Appellee. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Amicus Supporting Appellant.
No. 18-2100, No. 18-2170
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
May 11, 2020
PUBLISHED. Argued: September 20, 2019. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00164-FL)
ON BRIEF: Laurie M. Riley, JONES WALKER LLP, Miami, Florida, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Shilpa Narayan, FRIEDMAN & HOULDING LLP, Mamaroneck, New York, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Sidney A.R. Foster, Assistant General Counsel, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
Before us is a matter arising from a jury verdict rendered in a sexual harassment case. In 2012, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee AutoZoners, LLC (AutoZone) hired Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Keith Ward as a part-time employee at its Whiteville, North Carolina store. Months later, the same AutoZone store hired Christina Atkinson. Shortly after she started working alongside Ward, Atkinson began groping him and engaging in sexually explicit language at work. Ward eventually quit and sued AutoZone, alleging violations of
I.
AutoZone is an automotive parts and accessories retailer and distributor with stores nationwide. On September 16, 2012, AutoZone hired Ward as a part-time commercial driver at its Whiteville, North Carolina store. Months later, around March 2013, it hired
Soon after she was hired, Atkinson began sexually harassing Ward. Many times, she not only made sexually offensive remarks toward Ward but also groped him. Once, for instance, Atkinson joked to Ward and Wanda Smith—a commercial sales manager who directly managed Ward and Atkinson and was responsible for the commercial section of the store—that she had performed oral sex on her husband for three hours the previous evening. Another time, Atkinson “dragged her . . . fingers” across Ward‘s buttocks, J.A. 504, and, a few days later, “grabbed [Ward‘s] nipple through [his] shirt and twisted it until [he] had a bruise,” J.A. 508–09. At other times still, Atkinson grabbed Ward‘s crotch; “jiggled and squeezed” his buttocks in Smith‘s presence, J.A. 518; poked his nipples with a pencil; and shoved him into a shelf, pressed her head to his chest, and rubbed his nipple. Despite Ward‘s repeated requests, Atkinson did not stop.
AutoZone had a written sexual harassment policy while this happened, of course. As then written, the policy defined sexual harassment to include “sexual flirtations, advances, and propositions“; “requests for sexual favors“; “verbal abuse of a sexual nature“; “gestures or verbal comments about an individual‘s body“; “sexually degrading words“; or “the display of sexually suggestive objects or pictures in the workplace.” J.A. 2067. It also required employees “who receive a complaint or become aware of any harassment” to “report it immediately to management” or other officials. J.A. 2067. And
AutoZone‘s sexual harassment policy, however, found little purchase at its Whiteville store. For one, handbooks describing the policy were not available at the store. Nor did AutoZone provide any in-person training on their sexual harassment policy. Instead, AutoZone required employees—managers and non-managers alike—to log in to a computer and “hit ‘yes‘” to verify that they had read the policy. J.A. 1201–02. Wayne Tarkington—a store manager who oversaw the Whiteville store and had hired Ward and Atkinson—testified that, though his responsibilities as store manager included ensuring that employees acknowledged that they “received” the policy, “or at least knew where it was at,” it was “not [his] job” to ensure that they read it. J.A. 1201–02. Indeed, “99 percent of the people [did] not even read the policy,” according to Tarkington, who also explained that he would illicitly log in to AutoZone‘s digital verification program and verify on behalf of other employees that they had read the policy. J.A. 1201. As for himself, Tarkington
So, despite this policy, Ward found little success in reporting Atkinson‘s behavior to their superiors. When Ward first reported Atkinson‘s behavior to Smith, she failed to respond—despite AutoZone‘s policy requiring her to do so. When Ward complained to Smith that he was “sick and tired” of Atkinson “putting her hands” on him, J.A. 512–13, Smith replied: “Well, maybe if you‘ll give her what she wants, she‘ll leave you alone,” J.A. 514. Ward then turned to Tarkington. After learning about Atkinson‘s behavior, Tarkington confronted Atkinson and admonished her to stop. But at the same time, Tarkington warned Ward to “knock it off,” although no one had accused Ward of any misconduct. J.A. 1244–45. Tarkington also informed Kenneth Geer—a district manager who oversaw about a dozen AutoZone stores, including the Whiteville location—about Atkinson‘s conduct and his response to it. Yet, according to Tarkington, Geer did nothing. Atkinson thus continued unabated as Smith and Tarkington did little to stop her: one time, Smith laughed while watching Atkinson try to grab Ward‘s hand and put it in her pants pocket, after Atkinson had said that she was not wearing any underwear and that her pocket had a hole in it; another time, Tarkington just “sh[ook] his head” after Ward complained about Atkinson once more, J.A. 534.
When Ward drove to work the next day, however, he saw Atkinson‘s car in the store‘s parking lot. So he drove away to draft a resignation letter, which he submitted later that day. Three days later, on August 19, 2013, Ward met with Geer to discuss possibly returning to work. During that conversation, Geer told Ward that “the whole thing [was Ward‘s] fault.” J.A. 578. Because Ward was “a man,” Geer continued, he “should have been able to . . . prevent[]” Atkinson‘s behavior. J.A. 578.
Ward did not return to AutoZone. According to Ward, Atkinson physically harassed him “at least [twenty] times, maybe a couple of dozen” in all, J.A. 795, and Ward reported her to Smith as many as twenty times between March and August 2013. Because of Atkinson‘s harassment, Ward suffered anxiety, stress, and chest pains, the latter of which required emergency medical attention and led to a heart catheterization.
On May 4, 2018, the jury returned its verdict. Though it rejected Ward‘s retaliation claim, the jury found AutoZone liable for the sexual harassment and IIED claims. For the sexual harassment claim, the jury awarded Ward $100,000 in compensatory damages and $600,000 in punitive damages. And for the IIED claim, it awarded Ward $150,000 in compensatory damages and $60,000 in punitive damages.
Post-judgment proceedings soon followed. In denying AutoZone‘s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to Ward‘s Title VII punitive damages, the district court rejected AutoZone‘s argument that no discriminating employee acted in a managerial capacity, concluding that a reasonable jury could have found that Smith, Tarkington, or Geer acted in the requisite managerial capacity and that Ward “produced
sufficient evidence that a managerial employee acted in reckless disregard of [his] federally protected rights.” J.A. 2045–48. Yet the district court partly granted and partly denied
Both parties timely appealed: AutoZone appealed, and Ward both cross-appealed and conditionally cross-appealed.
II.
We face a raft of issues on appeal. For its part, AutoZone argues that the district court erred in denying its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law because punitive damages were improper for Ward‘s Title VII claim and his IIED claim. As explained below, we agree and reverse the award of punitive damages.
In turn, AutoZone also argues that the district court erred in partially denying its motion to alter or amend the judgment because Ward‘s compensatory damages awards for his Title VII and IIED claim constituted an impermissible double recovery. And it argues
For his part, Ward, in his cross-appeal, argues that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment to AutoZone on his constructive discharge claim,2 and, in his conditional cross-appeal, argues that, should we disturb the judgment below, he should be permitted to allocate his damages awards in a way that maximizes his monetary recovery.
III.
We begin with AutoZone‘s challenge to Ward‘s punitive damages awards. AutoZone contends that the district court erred in denying its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law because no bases for punitive damages exist for either Ward‘s Title VII claim or his IIED claim.
We review denials of motions for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Legacy Data Access, Inc. v. Cadrillion, LLC, 889 F.3d 158, 164 (4th Cir. 2018). Because the jury returned a verdict in Ward‘s favor, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to him, giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences without weighing the evidence or assessing the credibility of any witnesses. Bresler v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 855 F.3d 178,
With these standards in mind, we first consider punitive damages under Title VII before then considering them under North Carolina law.
A.
Title VII authorizes punitive damages only when a plaintiff makes two showings. First, the plaintiff must show that the employer “engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) . . . .”
When a plaintiff relies on vicarious liability to hold an employer liable for punitive damages under Title VII, as Ward did, he must do so under traditional principles of agency law. Agency law provides only four ways an employer can be held vicariously liable for punitive damages based on the act of an employee: (1) when the employer authorizes the employee‘s tortious act; (2) when an employee is unfit and the employer acts recklessly in
In response to AutoZone‘s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and on appeal, Ward pursues vicarious liability under only the third of these four options, the managerial-capacity theory. He contends that AutoZone is vicariously liable for punitive damages based on the conduct of Smith, Geer, or Tarkington who, according to Ward, served in a managerial capacity and were acting within the scope of their employment. Ward also contends those alleged managers acted with malice and reckless indifference as required by
AutoZone, on the other hand, contends there is no evidentiary basis to support a finding that Smith, Geer, or Tarkington possessed the necessary managerial capacity to impute liability for punitive damages to AutoZone. AutoZone also argues there is no evidentiary basis to support a finding Smith, Geer, or Tarkington engaged in intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference.
For the reasons below, we agree with AutoZone that the evidence does not permit finding that Smith served in a managerial capacity. But, under our deferential standard of review, we conclude that there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude Geer or Tarkington served in such a capacity.
1.
Onto the first inquiry. AutoZone first argues that it is not vicariously liable for punitive damages because there is not a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a conclusion that its employees Geer, Smith or Tarkington served in a managerial capacity. In determining whether an employee serves in a managerial capacity, courts must apply traditional agency principles. The Supreme Court explained in Kolstad that we must examine “the type of authority that the employer has given to the employee, the amount of
Twenty years ago we applied these principles in Lowery. There, we affirmed portions of a judgment against Circuit City, concluding that punitive damages were appropriate because a reasonable jury could find that two Circuit City employees served in managerial capacities. 206 F.3d at 444–47. Regarding the first employee, we noted the employee managed an entire department at Circuit City. She was authorized to expand the department and did so from nine to twenty-one individuals. In addition, the employee had the authority to hire individuals to fill budgeted positions in the department in her sole discretion and could organize her department any way she wanted. Id. at 444. Concerning the second employee, we explained that employee managed an entire department of a Circuit City subsidiary such that approximately fifty people reported to the employee directly or indirectly. She was also able to make personnel decisions, including promotional decisions, “without any objective criteria or accountability.” Id. at 447.
That said, we first consider Geer, who, as a District Manager for AutoZone, oversaw twelve stores, including the store where Ward worked. Geer had the authority to approve the promotion of an individual from part-time status to full-time status and to transfer an
Tarkington is a closer call. As a Store Manager, Tarkington was essentially responsible for everything within “all four corners of the walls” of the store. J.A. 1199. He had the authority to hire employees, discipline them and to issue corrective action reviews. Tarkington also was responsible for enforcing AutoZone policies within the store. Yet under Lowery‘s holding and based on our standard of review, we agree that there is sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Tarkington had the authority and discretion required for managerial capacity.
AutoZone‘s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. It mainly contends that Geer, Smith, and Tarkington cannot be managerial agents because they did not serve “in a higher managerial capacity.” Br. Appellant/Cross-Appellee 41. But neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has cast the managerial capacity test in such stringent terms. In fact, the footnote in Bryant v. Aiken Regional Medical Centers Inc., 333 F.3d 536 (4th Cir. 2003), that AutoZone cites to support its proposition simply restates our formulation from Lowery. Id. at 548 n.4 (“For an employer to be held vicariously liable for punitive damages, a plaintiff must also show that the discriminating employee served the employer in a managerial capacity and committed the intentional discrimination while acting within the scope of employment.” (citing Lowery, 206 F.3d at 442)). Taken at face value, AutoZone‘s formulation encroaches on the Supreme Court‘s own enunciation of the managerial
By contrast, Smith‘s authority and discretion were far more circumscribed. Smith served as the Commercial Sales Manager for AutoZone‘s Whiteville, North Carolina store. Although that title may sound like it involves adequate managerial responsibilities, the record reveals her actual job duties did not. As a Commercial Sales Manager, Smith was responsible for “taking care of the customer.” J.A. 1441. She received orders from commercial customers, pulled the parts for the orders and billed customers for the orders. To be sure, she could make recommendations about hiring and staffing, but she lacked the authority to hire or to fire an employee herself. To the extent that there was some evidence that Smith may have had the authority to send Atkinson home, this is a thin basis for a finding of managerial authority. Although the Tenth Circuit—in a case cited in Lowery—ascribed managerial authority to an employee who had the power to suspend subordinates and make hiring and firing recommendations, that court emphasized that the “power to make independent decisions regarding personnel matters or determine policy” were the key indicia of managerial authority. Equal Emp‘t Opportunity Comm‘n v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1247 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Smith‘s oversight of certain employees was also insufficient to qualify her as a managerial employee. Although Ward and Atkinson reported to Smith in some ways, if
Thus, AutoZone‘s vicarious liability for punitive damages, if any, must be based on Geer or Tarkington. But it is not enough that there was evidence to support the finding that these two employees were managers. In order to determine whether their conduct was sufficient to impute vicarious liability for punitive damages to AutoZone, they must also have engaged in intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference to Ward‘s federally protected rights.
2.
We turn next to the question of malice or reckless indifference. AutoZone argues that there is insufficient evidence to support a reasonable jury‘s finding that its managerial employees engaged in an intentionally discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to Ward‘s federally protected rights. In response, Ward relies on Geer and Tarkington‘s failure to sufficiently respond to Ward‘s complaints to his satisfaction and their awareness of federal antidiscrimination laws. According to Ward, under Kolstad and
Ward‘s argument overlooks the fact that he must first present sufficient evidence showing Geer or Tarkington themselves engaged in intentional discrimination in order to hold AutoZone vicariously liable for punitive damages. There does not appear to be any dispute about this requirement. The district court charged it below, J.A. 1960, and properly cited it in its order denying AutoZone‘s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, J.A. 2045.
Further, the requirement that the manager engage in the intentional discrimination is mandated by our precedent. As we have previously explained, for a punitive damages award to be justified under a managerial capacity theory of vicarious liability, the evidence must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the “employer‘s decision maker“—that is, the managerial employee—“discriminated in the face of a perceived risk that the decision would violate federal law.” Equal Emp‘t Opportunity Comm‘n. v. Fed. Express Corp., 513 F.3d 360, 372 (4th Cir. 2008) (emphases added); see id. (observing that the jury must also find “[t]hat the decision maker acted within the scope of his employment in making the challenged decision” (emphasis added)).
Similarly, fundamental to the analysis in Kolstad and Lowery was the finding that the managers themselves allegedly engaged in intentional discrimination by failing to promote the plaintiffs on the basis of race or gender despite training that such
[T]he Court held that an employer may be held vicariously liable for a punitive damage award in a Title VII case for the intentionally discriminatory conduct of its employee, where the employee served the employer in a managerial capacity, committed the intentional discrimination at issue while acting in the scope of employment . . . .
Lowery, 206 F.3d at 443; see id. at 445 (finding a manager “intentionally refused to promote [an employee] on account of race” (emphasis added)). In sum, such language supports the requirement that, under the managerial capacity theory of vicarious liability, the managers themselves must carry out the intentional discrimination.
Ward failed to present evidence that Geer or Tarkington—the alleged managerial employees—engaged in intentional discrimination. Instead, he presented evidence that Atkinson engaged in discrimination in the form of sexual harassment. But she was not a manager. And to the extent that Ward seeks to mix and match Atkinson‘s discriminatory conduct with Geer and Tarkington‘s managerial capacity, such a theory finds no support in the precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court. Any argument that Kolstad and Lowery support such a theory of liability ignores the key differences between the claims of discrimination asserted in Kolstad and Lowery and those asserted here. As discussed, Kolstad and Lowery support an employer‘s vicarious liability for punitive liability when the manager carries out the intentional discrimination. They provide no support for punitive damages liability when the employee who carries out the intentional
The evidence Ward presented concerning Geer and Tarkington‘s role in the discrimination was their response to Ward‘s complaints about Atkinson. In certain circumstances, punitive damages may be appropriate where a managerial employee is apprised of a discriminatory situation, yet responds with reckless indifference to it despite his or her knowledge of the claim. That was the case in Federal Express, where there was evidence that a managerial employee—despite awareness of his obligation under the
Further, there was a distinct intentionality on the part of the managerial employee in Federal Express that elevated the actions there above mere negligence to reckless indifference. See Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 536 (observing that malice or reckless indifference may be found “when the defendant‘s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference“); cf. U.S. Equal Emp‘t Opportunity Comm‘n v. Consol Energy, 860 F.3d 131, 151 (4th Cir. 2017) (observing that the employer was not liable for punitive damages because evidence failed to show management “subjectively appreciated that its efforts [to accommodate] were inadequate“). By contrast, the evidence here, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Ward, does not support a showing that Tarkington or Geer engaged in intentional discrimination with reckless indifference to Ward‘s rights. According to Ward, he reported Atkinson‘s conduct directly to Tarkington in June and July 2013. Tarkington, in response, assured Ward he would speak with Atkinson. The uncontradicted evidence is that he did
A reasonable jury could have concluded that Geer and Tarkington might have done more in these circumstances to address Ward‘s concerns or perhaps acted sooner, especially given that Ward introduced evidence that Geer and Tarkington—who had knowledge of Atkinson‘s discriminatory conduct via Ward‘s complaints—failed to take measures that stopped Atkinson‘s conduct altogether. In fact, this evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that AutoZone is liable for compensatory damages. AutoZone‘s liability for punitive damages, however, is an entirely different issue.
At best, Geer and Tarkington were negligent, not recklessly indifferent. Ward introduced no evidence Geer or Tarkington themselves engaged in intentional discrimination or acted with reckless indifference or malice in addressing Ward‘s complaints. Unlike the manager in Federal Express, Tarkington and Geer began taking steps to address the situation, including by reporting the situation to other managerial employees and designing a plan to remedy it. Although a jury may have been entitled to determine these steps were inadequate, there was simply not sufficient evidence
Altogether, considering the precedent from the Supreme Court and this Court, and after reviewing the manner in which other courts of appeals have addressed this issue, in our view, a party seeking to hold an employer vicariously liable for punitive damages based on the theory that employees served in a managerial capacity must establish more than that manager-level employees negligently failed to adequately respond to complaints of harassment. He must show that the managerial employees engaged in an intentionally
B.
Our conclusion that punitive damages under Title VII were improper does not end our sojourn into the topic of punitive damages, however, for AutoZone also argues that the district court erred by allowing the jury to award punitive damages for Ward‘s North Carolina IIED claim.
North Carolina law also allows a plaintiff to recover punitive damages in certain limited circumstances. Under Chapter 1D of the North Carolina General Statutes:
Punitive damages may be awarded only if the claimant proves the defendant is liable for compensatory damages and that one of the following aggravating factors was present and was related to the injury for which compensatory damages were awarded:
- Fraud.
- Malice.
- Willful or wanton conduct.
This standard for punitive damages under North Carolina law is distinct and separate from the standard for punitive damages under Title VII in at least two ways. First, the burden of proof for proving punitive damages under North Carolina law is higher than the burden of proof for proving punitive damages under Title VII. As mentioned above, the existence of an aggravating factor under North Carolina law must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Second, North Carolina‘s definition of willful or wanton conduct differs markedly from Title VII‘s definition of reckless indifference. Under North Carolina law, Chapter
In Vandevender v. Blue Ridge of Raleigh, LLC, 901 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 2018), this Court, applying North Carolina law, elaborated on the meaning of willfulness and wantonness. In doing so, we observed that though willful or wanton conduct does not require proof of malicious intent, it does require proof of the conscious and intentional disregard of and indifference to the rights and safety of others. Vandevender, 901 F.3d at 240. Applying this standard, this Court found that the defendants acted willfully and wantonly when they deliberately disregarded their legal duty to their patients, placing them at greater risk of injury or death, in order to increase profits. Id.
Under North Carolina‘s standard, there is no sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to conclude Geer or Tarkington participated in or condoned willful or wanton conduct, especially under the applicable clear and convincing standard. Stated differently, clear and convincing evidence does not show that Geer or Tarkington consciously disregarded Ward‘s rights. As described above, the record indicates that Geer
IV.
We depart from the issue of punitive damages and arrive at the issue of duplicative recovery. AutoZone argues that the district court erred in denying its motion to alter or amend the judgment because Ward‘s Title VII compensatory damages are duplicative of his IIED compensatory damages. We disagree, and affirm the district court‘s denial of AutoZone‘s motion.
We review a district court‘s denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Medical Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 653 (4th Cir. 2002).
A “widely accepted prohibition on duplicative damages” exists. Gordon v. Pete‘s Auto Serv. of Denbigh, Inc., 637 F.3d 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff, then, “may not receive a double recovery under different legal theories for the same injury.” Id. For its part, AutoZone argues that Ward‘s Title VII and IIED claims arise from the same injury. Because Ward stated in his Complaint that these claims arose from AutoZone “knowingly permitting a sexually hostile work environment,” J.A. 28, AutoZone‘s argument goes,
But we are obliged “to determine whether a jury verdict can be sustained, on any reasonable theory.” Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat. Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587, 599 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Rooted in the deference accorded to juries in our constitutional tradition, this obligation requires us to harmonize a seemingly inconsistent verdict “if there is any reasonable way to do so” before we may disregard a jury‘s verdict. Id.
Here, the verdict is reconcilable. In denying AutoZone‘s motion, the district court explained that the standards for awarding compensatory damages under Title VII and North Carolina law differ. Under the former, the jury was instructed to award nominal or actual damages depending on the proof of physical or emotional injury, the latter of which was referred to as “emotional distress.” J.A. 1958–59. Under the latter, however, the jury was instructed that conduct must have “in fact caused severe emotional distress.” J.A. 1972–73. The verdict does not clarify whether the jury awarded compensatory damages only for emotional distress, rather than, say, physical injury too. So it is reasonable to infer that the jury chose to compensate Ward for his physical injuries (like his heart problems) under one claim and chose to compensate him for his emotional injuries (like his anxiety and stress) under another. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
V.
We next consider AutoZone‘s challenges to the district court‘s jury instructions. Though AutoZone offers a few purported errors, all lack merit.
We review challenges to jury instructions under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Noel v. Artson, 641 F.3d 580, 586 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The party challenging the jury instructions faces a heavy burden, for ‘we accord the district court much discretion’ to fashion the charge.” (quoting Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 985 (4th Cir. 1994))). “[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge,” id. (quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 153 n.10 (1977)), so “we simply determine whether the instructions construed as a whole, and in light of the whole record, adequately informed the jury of the controlling legal principles without misleading or confusing the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bailey v. Cty. of Georgetown, 94 F.3d 152, 156 (4th Cir. 1996)).
As a result, a district court reversibly errs in refusing to give an instruction proposed by a party “only when the requested instruction (1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the court‘s charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so
First, AutoZone argues that the instructions charged the jury to consider the harassment or complaints of other employees. Because no such harassment or complaints existed, AutoZone contends, these instructions were erroneous. This is an imaginative reading of the instructions. Consider one part of the instructions that AutoZone objects to: “Additionally, in determining whether defendant should have known about Christina Atkinson‘s sexual harassment directed at plaintiff, you may consider whether . . . other employees made complaints of sexual harassment against Christina Atkinson.” J.A. 1953–54 (emphasis added). Another part states: “Accordingly, if the offending conduct was directed at other employees of defendant . . . .” J.A. 1952 (emphasis added). These excerpts, like all the relevant instructions, do not presuppose that other employees were harassed or that they complained. Rather, they are conditionally phrased. If, Meriam-Webster‘s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003) (“[I]n the event that . . . on condition that.“); Whether, Meriam-Webster‘s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003) (“[A]n indirect question involving stated or implied alternatives.“). That is, the instructions guide the jury‘s considerations only if the jury first finds that the requisite condition exists. They are not misleading or confusing, and they adequately inform the jury of the controlling legal principles at issue.
Lastly, AutoZone argues that the jury instructions erroneously failed to include language stating that an employer can only be charged with constructive knowledge if the employer failed to provide reasonable channels to complain. Yet the district court included an entire instruction about the knowledge and constructive knowledge element of Ward‘s sexual harassment claim. Once more, this argument amounts to a plea for greater specificity to otherwise accurate jury instructions.
In all, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its chosen jury instructions. Construing the instructions in their entirety, they plainly and accurately discuss both claims and their corresponding damages and thus adequately inform the jury of the controlling
VI.
We arrive at the remaining issue. AutoZone argues that the district court committed various evidentiary errors that merit reversal of the judgment below.
We review a district court‘s application of the
A threshold issue merits addressing here. AutoZone contends that the cumulative-error doctrine applies to the purported evidentiary errors. That doctrine requires that the district court‘s judgment be set aside if the district court‘s evidentiary errors, even if individually harmless, “so fatally infect the trial” when aggregated that they violate the trial‘s “fundamental fairness.” United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452, 471 (5th Cir. 2004)). However harmful a sole error may have been, AutoZone argues, the errors in the aggregate certainly violated the trial‘s fundamental fairness.
VII.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS