Roane v. Frankie's Bar & Grill et al

Filing 77

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 68 Motion for New Trial By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 08/14/2018. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02936-CMA-NYW
KLANCIE A. ROANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKIE’S BAR & GRILL, a/k/a Frankie’s Inc.,
n/k/a Frankie’s Inc. dissolved May 27, 2016,
FRANKIE D. PATTON, and
KATHLEEN PATTON,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
______________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Plaintiff Klancie A. Roane’s Motion for a New Trial, wherein she
argues that the jury’s decision not to award her emotional distress damages was against the
weight of undisputed evidence at trial. (Doc. # 68.) Defendants Frankie’s Bar & Grill and
Frankie and Kathleen Patton object to the motion, arguing that “there was adequate evidence
from which a jury could question Plaintiff’s credibility with respect to [Plaintiff’s] claims of
emotional distress.” (Doc. # 71 at 1.) For the following reasons, the Court agrees with
Defendants and denies Plaintiff’s request for a new trial.
I.

BACKGROUND

This case was tried to a jury on April 16–18, 2018. (Doc. ## 53–55.) On the third day of
trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Defendant Frankie’s Bar and Grill liable for Plaintiff’s
claim for pregnancy discrimination but not for Plaintiff’s claim of a hostile work environment.
(Doc. # 58 at 1.) The jury then awarded Plaintiff $500 in back pay damages, reducing the award

by $499 based on Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate those damages. (Id. at 1–2.) The jury did not
award Plaintiff any emotional distress or punitive damages. (Id.)
II.

LAW

A motion for a new trial made on the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the
weight of the evidence normally presents a question of fact and is left to the sound discretion of
the trial court. E.g., Harris v. Quinones, 507 F.2d 533, 535 (10th Cir. 1974); Cmty. Nat’l Life Ins.
Co. v. Parker Square Savings & Loan Ass’n, 406 F.2d 603, 605 (10th Cir.1969); Champion
Home Builders v. Shumate, 388 F.2d 806, 808 (10th Cir.1967); Brown v. McGraw-Edison Co.,
736 F.2d 609, 616–17 (10th Cir. 1984).
The standard for determining if a new trial is warranted is whether the verdict is “clearly,
decidedly, or overwhelmingly” against the weight of the evidence. Champion Home Builders,
388 F.2d at 808; Prebble v. Brodrick, 535 F.2d 605, 617 (10th Cir.1976). “[T]he jury verdict
must not be preempted unless it has no basis in fact. [In other words], the evidence must all be
one way from which only one reasonable inference can be drawn.” Champion Home Builders,
388 F.2d at 808.
In assessing a plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, “the evidence must be viewed in a light
most favorable to the [defendants] . . . and [they] must be given the benefit of all inferences
fairly drawn therefrom.” Id. Such motions are “regarded with disfavor and should only be
granted with great caution.” United States v. Quintanilla, 193 F.3d 1139, 1146 (10th Cir. 1999).
III.

ANALYSIS

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Defendants, the Court is not
convinced that the jury’s verdict denying emotional distress damages was clearly, decidedly, or
overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.

2

Because there is no exact standard for fixing compensation in emotional distress
damages, the jury is given substantial leeway in assessing the validity and fairness of such an
award, if any. See Canady v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 970 F.2d 710, 715 (10th Cir. 1992)
(“Emotional distress is an intangible damage, and is an issue of fact within the providence of the
jury.”). In so deciding, the jury in this case was asked to consider “the nature, character, and
seriousness of any pain and suffering, humiliation, anxiety, depression, mental anguish, or loss
of enjoyment of life that Plaintiff experienced.” (Doc. # 56 at 16.)
Plaintiff’s evidence of emotional distress was comprised solely of her own testimony,
wherein she stated that her loss of employment made her “completely depressed” and “ruined
[her] family completely.” (Doc. # 68-2 at 63–64.) She added that she felt “discouraged,” her
“family suffers,” and she and her husband are “separated because [she] was the sole
breadwinner . . . and could not provide for [them] anymore.” (Id. at 12, 64.) Plaintiff did not
provide the jury with any additional information about the nature, character, seriousness, or
extent of her emotional harm or loss of enjoyment of life, nor did she testify that she received
mental health treatment for her distress.
Although Plaintiff presented some evidence to support an award emotional distress
damages, Defendants countered with evidence challenging Plaintiff’s credibility. For example,
Defendants proffered evidence suggesting that Plaintiff mislead her employer about her reasons
for missing work and had several verbal altercations with colleagues and supervisors.
Defendants also presented testimony from several witnesses that Plaintiff took frequent and
lengthy breaks and failed to perform side duties at work, despite Plaintiff testifying on direct
examination to her good work performance and false “write-ups.” Defendants further presented
testimony challenging Plaintiff’s allegation on direct examination that Defendant Frankie Patton
yelled at her; Defendants questioned numerous witnesses who testified that they never heard
3

Mr. Patton yell at anyone. A voice recording between Mr. Patton and Plaintiff re-enforced his
calm demeanor.
Whether Defendants’ witnesses were more accurate or more credible than Plaintiff is not
for this Court to decide. The jury was the trier of fact in this case, and this Court is only to
determine whether the jury’s verdict is consistent with the evidence. After hearing all the facts
presented by both sides of this litigation, the jury was free to assess the credibility of Plaintiff’s
testimony and weigh it accordingly. See Anaeme v. Diagnostek, Inc., 164 F.3d 1275, 1284
(10th Cir. 1999); see also Brown, 736 F.2d at 616 (“[T]he credibility of opinion testimony, and
the weight to be given it, are for the jury.”). Indeed, based on the verdict rendered, it appears
the jury did not believe Plaintiff’s hostile work environment allegations or her contentions that
she mitigated her damages; the jury could have likewise discounted Plaintiff’s testimony about
her emotional distress.
Accordingly, the Court finds, viewing the evidence in Defendants’ favor, the jury’s
decision not to award Plaintiff any emotional distress damages, despite her testimony on the
matter, was not clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence or with
no basis in fact. A new trial is not, therefore, warranted.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial
(Doc. # 68.)
Dated: August 14, 2018

BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
4