EEOC v. Meadowview Community Action, Inc.

Filing 36

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment be GRANTED. Judgment should be rendered in the amount of $760 in lost wages for each charging party, and $15,000 in compensatory damages fo r each charging party, for a total judgment of $31,520. ORDERING the status conference before Judge Burrell on February 11, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., is vacated from the calendar. Objections to F&R due within ten days signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/4/08. (Kaminski, H)

EEOC v. Meadowview Community Action, Inc.

Doc. 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendant. ___________________________/ Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendant Meadowview Community Action, Inc. ("Meadowview"), filed July 3, 2007, was vacated from this court's calendar and taken under submission. Upon further review of the record, it appeared that an evidentiary hearing was necessary on the issue of compensatory damages. Accordingly, after hearing on February 1, 2008, review of the motion and supporting documents, and good cause appearing, the court issues the following findings and recommendations. BACKGROUND On July 13, 2006, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in this action against defendant Meadowview, on behalf of charging parties Lacey and Laney Wesley, employees who allege they were terminated by defendant because of their gender, to be replaced by male 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, CIV. NO. S-06-1562 GEB GGH

MEADOWVIEW COMMUNITY ACTION, INC., ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 200e-2(a)(1). The summons and complaint were served by mail on defendant (Malachi Smith, agent), on July 18, 2006. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). Defendant has failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in this action. On December 13, 2006, the clerk entered default against defendant Meadowview. The instant application for default judgment and supporting papers were served by mail on defendant at its last known address. Defendant filed no opposition to the application for entry of default judgment. Plaintiff seeks an entry of default judgment in the amount of $760 in lost wages and $20,000 in compensatory damages for each of the charging parties. DISCUSSION Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977). The court finds the well pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which relief can be granted. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). Because the declarations were not sufficient to support an award of $20,000 per charging party in compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, the court held an evidentiary hearing on February 1, 2008. After hearing, the court finds that the application, declarations filed in support of the application for default judgment, and hearing testimony also support the finding that plaintiff is entitled to the damages requested. A. Back Pay "Damages are determined by `measuring the difference between actual earnings for the period and those which she would have earned absent the discrimination by defendant.' " Gotthardt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 191 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. \\\\\ 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The declarations detail that charging parties Lacey and Laney Wesley were terminated on August 9, 2004, at which time they earned $9.50 per hour for twenty hours per week. Both Wesleys found work in September, 2004 for which they earned $9.75 per hour at the same weekly number of hours as the jobs for Meadowview. They calculate their lost wages at $9.50 per hour for twenty hours per week for four weeks, from August 9, 2004 to September 5, 2004, for a total of $760 per person in lost wages. Wesley Decls., ¶¶ 18, 20. The court finds that these declarations support the requested lost wages. B. Non-pecuniary Compensatory Damages (Emotional Pain and Suffering) The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party-(A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $50,000 .... 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). Courts generally disfavor default judgments, however, especially those involving large sums. See In Re Roxford Foods, Inc., 12 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir.1993);10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 3d § 2681. "The general rule of law is that upon default factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to amount of damages, will be taken as true." Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 8(d), 55(b)) (emphasis added); see also Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir.2002) (same). Granting or denying default judgment is discretionary. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir.1986). Several factors may be relevant. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986).1 Factors include: (1) possible prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the complaint's sufficiency; (4) the sum at stake; (5) possible disputes 3
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

"A judgment by default may not be entered without a hearing on damages unless ... the amount claimed is liquidated or capable of ascertainment from definite figures contained in the documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits." Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Products, 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing Geddes); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir.1981) (no hearing necessary when documents show judgment amount based on a definite figure); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) (the district court has the discretion to conduct or refuse a hearing on default judgment). Where the amount of damages is not ascertainable from the pleadings, the court should hold a hearing to determine the amount of the award. Eisler v. Stritzler, 535 F.2d 148, 153-54 (1st Cir. 1976). Where emotional distress resulting from a constitutional violation is alleged, the evidence supporting it must be competent and sufficient. Akouri v. State of Forida Dept. of Transp., 408 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005). Because the declarations were not detailed enough to support the sum requested, an evidentiary hearing sought to obtain further information. Both charging parties state in their declarations that they had never been fired before, that they were "extremely upset and anxious and humiliated" as a result of their terminations, that their friends and family wondered if they had done something wrong, and that they suffered from lowered self-esteem. Wesley Decls., ¶¶ 22. The testimony of Laney Wesley was that after learning she was fired, she felt shocked, anxious, humiliated, hurt, and lost interest in doing any other activities. She suffered from stomach aches, sleeplessness, nausea, and blamed herself, to the point of wondering whether she was choosing the right career of school counseling, despite her love of kids. She did not want to tell anyone what happened, and only told her mother and a few friends. She also felt bad that she did not get to say goodbye to the kids, and was too upset to contact the EEOC until October. \\\\\ about material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Lacey Wesley testified to many of the same feelings after being terminated. She felt, sad, anxious, and shocked. She suffered from stomach aches, headaches, nausea, and sleeplessness. She questioned her career goals of wanting to work with kids, and felt that maybe she was not good enough to do this work. She was too embarrassed to talk about her termination with anyone other than her mother. She had low energy, and did not want to leave the house. She also felt angry and upset, and filed an EEOC claim in order to have justice served. Cases awarding damages for emotional distress of this type have awarded a wide range, from $5,000 to $20,000. See Epstein v. Kalvin-Miller, 139 F.Supp.2d 469, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the court finds that $15,000 per charging party is sufficient to compensate them for the emotional injury suffered as a result of defendant's conduct. There are no policy considerations which preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the status conference before Judge Burrell on February 11, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., is vacated from the calendar. In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment be GRANTED. Judgment should be rendered in the amount of $760 in lost wages for each charging party, and $15,000 in compensatory damages for each charging party, for a total judgment of $31,520. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. \\\\\ 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: 02/04/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows ___________________________________ GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH:076
EEOC1562.def.wpd

6