Jean Pierre v. Park Hotels & Resort Inc.

Filing 156

ORDER. Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial [ECF No. 138] is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Remittitur [ECF No. 139] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The award of punitive damages shall be reduced to $300,000, bringing Plaintiff's total award to $836,000. Additionally, this case shall be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles See attached document for full details. (lfn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-21955-GAYLES
MARIE L. JEAN PIERRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
PARK HOTELS & RESORT, INC., a
foreign corporation f/k/a HILTON
WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Park Hotels & Resorts Inc., f/k/a
Hilton Worldwide, Inc.’s, Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a
New Trial [ECF No. 138] and Motion for Remittitur [ECF No. 139]. The Court has reviewed the
Motions, the parties’ written submissions, and the applicable law and is otherwise fully advised.
For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the
Alternative, for a New Trial is denied, and Defendant’s Motion for Remittitur is granted in part
and denied in part.
I.

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial

makes three primary arguments, none of which are availing. First, resubmitting the first
inconsistent verdict to the jury was an appropriate step that resulted in a second consistent verdict.
“A verdict contains an inconsistency if answers given by the jury ‘may [not] fairly be said to
represent a logical and probable decision on the relevant issues as submitted.’” Wilbur v.

Correctional Servs. Corp., 393 F.3d 1192, 1200 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Aquachem Co. v. Olin
Corp., 699 F.2d 516, 521 (11th Cir. 1983)). In cases where the jury has entered a finding of
damages, but not a finding of liability, the Eleventh Circuit has noted that resubmission to the jury
with instructions to reconsider is appropriate—a procedure which was followed here without
objection. Id. at 1203–04; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(b)(3)(B). Accordingly, judgment shall not
be entered in Defendant’s favor on the first verdict. Second, Defendant is not entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on the causation prong of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. A party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law if “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary
basis” to find for the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). In addition, for the Court to grant a
new trial “the evidence must preponderate heavily against the verdict, such that it would be a
miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand.” Butcher v. United States, 368 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th
Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312–13 (11th Cir. 1985)). The
Court finds that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence. The jury could have found that
Defendant’s purported reasonable accommodation was pretext that created grounds for Plaintiff’s
firing—in other words, a retaliatory firing for her requests to practice her religion. Finally, a new
trial is not warranted. Defendant cites no highly prejudicial error warranting a new trial. Based on
the evidence presented, a jury could find that Defendant’s conduct qualified as recklessly
indifferent such that punitive damages were warranted. Accordingly, the Court declines to disturb
the jury’s verdict.
II.

Motion for Remittitur
Defendant’s Motion for Remittitur is similarly unavailing, save for its argument on the

legal constraints for punitive damages under Title VII. As the parties agree that the punitive award
should be reduced to the statutory maximum of $300,000, the Court shall grant Defendant’s

Motion on that ground. But the Court otherwise declines to otherwise reduce the award of
damages. “A remittitur order reducing a jury’s award to the outer limit of the proof is the
appropriate remedy where the jury's damage award exceeds the amount established by the
evidence.” Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., 518 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Goldstein v. Manhattan Indus., Inc., 758 F.2d 1435, 1448 (11th Cir.1985)). Here, the evidence
established that Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of wages. The jury
found those damages substantial enough to award her $500,000.00 in compensatory damages. See
Ferrill v. Parker Grp., Inc., 168 F.3d 468, 476 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that in upholding
compensatory damages award that harm is subjective and its evaluation is dependent on the
witness’s demeanor). Accordingly, the Court shall not disturb the jury’s award of compensatory
damages.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the
Alternative, for a New Trial [ECF No. 138] is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Remittitur
[ECF No. 139] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The award of punitive
damages shall be reduced to $300,000, bringing Plaintiff’s total award to $836,000. Additionally,
this case shall be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of July, 2019.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE