McClain v. Pfizer Inc
Filing
270
ORDER denying 249 defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or to Amend the Judgment, and granting 238 plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Punitive Damages. See the attached memorandum of decision. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 6/27/11. (Wilson, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BECKY McCLAIN,
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
PFIZER, INC.,
Defendant.
3:06-cv-1795 (WWE)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Becky McClain and
against defendant Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”). Pfizer now moves for judgment as a matter of
law or for amendment of the judgment. (Doc. #249) McClain moves for attorney’s fees
and punitive damages. (Doc. #238) For the following reasons, Pfizer’s motion will be
denied and McClain’s motion will be granted.
BACKGROUND
McClain filed this action in Connecticut Superior Court, alleging that Pfizer
terminated her employment in violation of Connecticut state law. Pfizer removed the
case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. United States District Judge
Vanessa L. Bryant granted Pfizer’s motion to dismiss five counts of McClain’s complaint
and subsequently granted Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment as to one additional
count. The case then proceeded to trial before the jury on the remaining two counts of
whistleblower retaliation in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51m and free speech
retaliation in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q. The jury found in favor of McClain
on both counts, awarding her $1.37 million plus punitive damages to be determined by
the court. McClain then filed a motion for attorney’s fees and punitive damages. (Doc.
#238) Pfizer filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on the free speech
retaliation claim and the punitive damages award. In the alternative, Pfizer sought
amendment of the judgment on the ground that the damages award was excessive.
(Doc. #249) Judge Bryant then transferred the case to this Court for a decision on
those pending motions.
DISCUSSION
I. Pfizer’s Motion
Pfizer first seeks judgment as a matter of law. A motion for judgment as a matter
of law “may only be granted if there exists such a complete absence of evidence
supporting the verdict that the jury’s findings could only have been the result of sheer
surmise and conjecture, or the evidence in favor of the movant is so overwhelming that
reasonable and fair minded [persons] could not arrive at a verdict against [it]. . . . [The
court] must give deference to all credibility determinations and reasonable inferences of
the jury, and may not weigh the credibility of witnesses or otherwise consider the weight
of the evidence.” Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2010).
Furthermore, a motion for judgment as a matter of law “should be granted cautiously
and sparingly.” Meloff v. New York Life Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 138, 145 (2d Cir. 2001).
Pfizer challenges the jury’s finding that Pfizer terminated McClain because she
made statements about matters of public concern. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q provides:
“Any employer . . . who subjects any employee to discipline or discharge on account of
the exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the
United States Constitution . . . provided such activity does not substantially or materially
interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship
2
between the employee and the employer, shall be liable to such employee for damages
caused by such discipline or discharge, including punitive damages, and for reasonable
attorney’s fees . . . .” Section 31-51q “safeguard[s] statements made by an employee
that address a matter of public concern, but provide[s] no security with respect to
statements that address wholly personal matters. . . . Speech that addresses a matter
of public concern involves statements that can be fairly considered as relating to any
matter of political, social, or other concern to the community . . . . That determination is
made by evaluating the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by
the whole record.” Daley v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., 249 Conn. 766, 778 (1999).
McClain, who worked as a molecular biologist at Pfizer, complained about an
odor in her laboratory and the placement of desks near laboratory benches where
experiments were performed. Pfizer argues that § 31-51q does not protect those
complaints because they were personal matters and did not relate to public health and
safety. Although McClain clearly had a personal interest in eliminating the odor and
keeping a safe distance between her desk and laboratory bench, “safety in the
workplace is a matter of public concern.” Munafo v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 285
F.3d 201, 212 (2d Cir. 2002). Pfizer has not cited any law requiring McClain to be a
completely disinterested party when speaking about workplace safety. Therefore, the
jury reasonably could find that McClain’s complaints addressed a matter of public
concern.
Pfizer next argues that McClain should not have prevailed under § 31-51q
because her complaints interfered with her job performance and were unrelated to
Pfizer’s decision to terminate her. McClain took a medical leave of absence from
3
February to June 2004 for an undetermined illness that she might have contracted from
biological materials at Pfizer. She then attempted to negotiate her return to work.
Pfizer believed that it had resolved her safety complaints so that she would be able to
return, but she disagreed. Negotiations failed, and Pfizer terminated McClain in May
2005. Although Pfizer characterizes McClain’s absence from work as interference that
is not protected by § 31-51q, the absence resulted from a factual dispute between the
parties over workplace safety. The jury was free to compare the evidence of McClain’s
illness and the substance of her complaints with the measures Pfizer took in response.
It was reasonable for the jury to find that McClain’s complaints did not interfere with her
job performance because the evidence produced by each party was of similar probative
value. McClain’s termination followed the unsuccessful negotiations over safety issues,
raising the possible inference that Pfizer decided to terminate McClain instead of
resolving her safety complaints. Pfizer has failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on McClain’s § 31-51q claim.
Pfizer also challenges the jury’s award of punitive damages to McClain. At trial,
Judge Bryant charged the jury that punitive damages could be awarded if McClain
proved that Pfizer acted willfully, maliciously, or recklessly in violating § 31-51q. Pfizer
argues that its conduct did not meet that level of proof because it attempted to address
McClain’s complaints and negotiate her return to work. However, McClain’s evidence
indicated that Pfizer delayed in responding to her complaints and ultimately did not
resolve them. The jury therefore reasonably could find that Pfizer’s conduct was willful,
malicious, or reckless.
Pfizer next seeks amendment of the judgment on the ground that the damages
4
award was excessive. As to the jury’s award of $685,000 in noneconomic damages,
Pfizer argues that reduction to $30,000 or less is warranted because McClain’s
testimony about her emotional distress was “vague and conclusory.” Pfizer contends
that the jury’s award was clearly erroneous and manifestly unjust. However, McClain
argues that her testimony showed that she lost sleep and felt sad, stressed, and
frustrated about Pfizer’s lack of responsiveness to her complaints. McClain felt
stressed about contracting an illness potentially from exposure to biological materials at
Pfizer. She feared her supervisor, who had raised his voice and used profanity when
speaking to her. Finally, she had to endure a significant period of unemployment
following her termination. Considering the jury’s critical benefit of hearing McClain’s live
testimony, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law that manifest injustice was
done. Pfizer has failed to cite any law requiring the Court to disturb the jury’s award of
noneconomic damages.
As to the jury’s award of $685,000 in economic damages, Pfizer argues that
reduction to $276,798 is necessary to account for a lack of evidence that McClain
received 5 percent annual raises, her period of disability in 2005 and 2006, and a lack
of evidence that she suffered financial loss with regard to benefits, since she obtained
health insurance after her termination through her husband. However, Pfizer’s payroll
records show that McClain’s annual compensation tended to increase by more than 4
percent in the years preceding her termination. In 1999, she earned approximately
$65,620; in 2000, her pay increased 4.7 percent to $68,728; in 2001, it increased 4.6
percent to $71,877; in 2002, it increased 9.4 percent to $78,629; and in 2003, it
increased 5 percent to $82,569. If McClain had continued her employment at Pfizer,
5
she would have been entitled to continue receiving her benefits, including disability pay.
Pfizer has not persuaded the Court that the economic damages award was clearly
erroneous or manifestly unjust.
II. McClain’s Motion
McClain moves for attorney’s fees as provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-51m
and 31-51q, and in accordance with the one-third contingent fee agreement she
entered into with her attorneys. The Court grants McClain’s motion for attorney’s fees
of one-third of the $1.37 million recovery, which is $456,666.67.
McClain also moves for punitive damages equal to her attorney’s fees plus costs
of $12,177.13. Pfizer argues that McClain’s costs should be reduced to $668.22. The
Court has reviewed McClain’s documentation and considered the extensive discovery in
this case over approximately four years. The Court determines that McClain’s costs are
allowable and reasonable. The Court therefore awards McClain punitive damages of
$468,843.80.
CONCLUSION
Pfizer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or to amend the judgment (Doc.
#249) is DENIED. McClain’s motion for attorney’s fees and punitive damages (Doc.
#238) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 27th day of June, 2011.
/s/
Warren W. Eginton
Senior United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?