Bingman v. Baltimore County

Filing 116

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: Post Trial Motion; denying 108 Baltimore County's Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Rule 50 or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 1/24/2017. (krs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LARRY R. BINGMAN

*
Plaintiff

vs.

*
*

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

*

Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-13-2678

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: POST TRIAL MOTION

*

The Court has before it Baltimore County’s Motion for
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 50 Or In The Alternative, Motion for
New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59 [ECF No. 108] and the materials
submitted relating thereto.

The Court finds that a hearing is

not necessary.

I.

BACKGROUND
In brief,1 Plaintiff Larry R. Bingman (“Bingman”) has sued

his former employer for violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., seeking
reinstatement, compensatory damages for mental anguish and
hardship, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

At trial, the

jury answered the questions stated on the verdict form as
follows:
1

For a more complete statement of the background, see the
Memorandum and Order Re: Summary Judgment [ECF No. 57].

SECTION ONE – WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIM
A.

LIABILITY

1.
Has Plaintiff Larry Bingman proven, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that
Baltimore County, Maryland, wrongfully
terminated his employment?
YES
B.

ECONOMIC DAMAGES

2.
What amount, if any, of lost wages and
benefits do you find that Plaintiff Larry
Bingman has proven by a preponderance of the
evidence?
$ 314,000.00

3.
Has Baltimore County proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that, for any
time between the date of his termination to
today, Plaintiff Larry Bingman failed to
make a reasonable effort to obtain work that
was available to him?
YES

a.
If so, for what period of time has
Baltimore County proven by a preponderance
of the evidence that he failed to make a
reasonable effort to obtain work that was
available to him?
218 WEEKS

b.
By how much, if any, do you find
that Baltimore County has proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that Mr.
Bingman’s economic damages should be
reduced?
$218,000.00

2

C.

NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES

4. What amounts, if any, do you award
Plaintiff Larry Bingman for non-economic
damages?
$298,000.00

SECTION TWO – Medical-Related Claims

5.
Has Plaintiff Larry Bingman proven, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that
Baltimore County, Maryland wrongfully
obtained a medical examination or made a
wrongful inquiry?
YES

6. What amount of damages, if any, do you
award Plaintiff Larry Bingman on this claim?

$6,000.00
Jury Verdict, ECF No. 89.
By the instant motion, the County seeks to have the Court
grant it judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or to reduce
Plaintiff’s recovery.

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides,

in pertinent part:
(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.

3

(1) In General. If a party has been
fully heard on an issue during a jury trial
and the court finds that a reasonable jury
would not have a legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find for the party on
that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party;
and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter
of law against the party . . . .
(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a
matter of law may be made at any time before
the case is submitted to the jury. . . .
(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial;
Alternative Motion for a New Trial.
If the court does not grant a motion
for judgment as a matter of law made under
Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have
submitted the action to the jury subject to
the court’s later deciding the legal
questions raised by the motion. No later
than 28 days after the entry of judgment . .
. . In ruling on the renewed motion, the
court may:
(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the
jury returned a verdict;
(2) order a new trial; or
(3) direct the entry of judgment as a
matter of law.
The County presented a Rule 50(a) motion at trial that was
denied and has timely filed the instant motion under Rule 50(a).
As expressed by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit in Whalen v. Roanoke County Bd. of Supvs’rs, 769
F.2d 221 (4th Cir. 1985):
The question to be resolved in deciding
a motion for judgment notwithstanding the

4

verdict [now referred to a motion for
judgment as a matter of law] is whether
there is evidence upon which a jury can
properly find a verdict.
769 F.2d at 224 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Edmunds, 241 F.2d
164, 167 (4th Cir. 1957)).
There is a different, and in a sense “lower” standard
applicable to the motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

When considering a motion for

a new trial, the trial judge may take into account his
evaluation of the weight of the evidence produced by the
respective parties.

Wyatt v. Interstate Ocean and Transport

Co., 623. F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1980).

As stated over 75 years ago

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:
[I]t is the duty of the judge to set aside
the verdict and grant a new trial, if he is
of the opinion that the verdict is against
the clear weight of the evidence, or is
based upon evidence which is false, or will
result in a miscarriage of justice, even
though there may be substantial evidence
which would prevent the direction of a
verdict.
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350, 352-53 (4th Cir.
1941).

III. DISCUSSION
The County presents the following grounds for relief:

5



The Court erred in its evidentiary rulings regarding
Bingman’s Social Security Application award.



The jury’s economic damages award for wrongful
termination was excessive with regard to health
insurance payments.



The jury’s noneconomic damages awards were excessive.

Each of these grounds shall be addressed in turn.
A.

Social Security Issues

Upon his termination from employment, Bingman applied for,
and received social security disability benefits.

The County

sought, at trial, to have the jury receive the entirety of the
Social Security file and, in particular, to have the jury
informed that Bingman had been awarded and received social
security benefits.
The Court ruled that the jury would not be told of the
Social Security award but the County could utilize in evidence
any statement or submission made by Bingman.

The Court stated

in the Order Re: Trial Motions [ECF No. 76]:
The following is the situation
regarding the Social Security file:
i. An instruction shall be given
regarding the security disability
application and file.
ii. Portions of the Social Security
file constituting submissions and statements
made by Plaintiff may be admitted.

6

At trial, in the conference held prior to giving
jury instructions, the Court stated in response to the
County’s desire to inform the jury of the Social
Security award:
THE COURT: As I said before and say now, I
agree with the plaintiff’s position that it
would be highly prejudicial; would violate
Federal Rule of Evidence 403; and beyond
that, I don’t think it’s relevant to tell
the jury of the Social Security
Administration’s determination, which is not
based on the same standard that we have.
Tr.2 561.
In the jury instructions, the Court stated:
There is reference in this case -- there has
been reference in this case to a Social
Security application. So I want to address
this and put it into context. Mr. Bingman
has applied for Social Security
Administration disability benefits. The
submissions and statements made by Mr.
Bingman to the Social Security
Administration are evidence in this case
that you may consider -- together with all
of the evidence -- in deciding Mr. Bingman’s
claims in this case.
The Social Security Administration is a
government agency that makes its disability
determination based upon a different basis
than you, the jury, in this case; and the
agency determination has no effect upon your
decision.
Id. at 576.
The Court reiterates its evidentiary determinations
2

Tr. references herein are to the transcript of July 14,
2015 [ECF No. 114].

7

regarding the Social Security file and its use in the trial of
the case.
The Court did not err in denying the judgment as a matter
of law on Bingman’s wrongful discharge claim.

Nor, was there

any error in regard to the Social Security evidence that would
warrant a new trial.

B.

Health Insurance Benefits

In regard to Bingman’s claim for compensatory economic
damages, he sought compensation for the 314 weeks between the
date of his termination and the date of trial.
The Court instructed the jury:
The economic damages would be the amount
that reasonably compensates Plaintiff Larry
Bingman for any lost wages and benefits,
taking into consideration any increases in
salary and benefits, including pension, that
Plaintiff would have received had Mr.
Bingman not been wrongfully discharged.
Tr. 583.
In final argument, Bingman’s counsel stated as to the
economic damages claim:
And he lost a great deal. He would have been
workin’. He would have been workin’ for
Baltimore County for those years. And at
$774 a week, he would have earned $241,000.
He would have had FICA payments on behalf of
him. And what he lost in those six years was
$260,000, and that’s what should be [stated
on the verdict].

8

That’s the amount in economic damages, plus
any health insurance. Whatever the value of
that health insurance is, you can apply. So
more than $260,000 in economic benefits that
he lost due to the wrongful termination.
Tr. 617-18.
In final argument, the County stated:
[W]e’re trying to figure out here, well,
what should his damages be reduced by, his
economic damages? And remember, his economic
damages are lost wages of $241,488;3 FICA
contributions of $18,594; some unknown
figure that had health insurance, but it had
no figure next to it, so I don’t know what
that was.
Tr. 638.
During deliberations, the jury sent a note stating:
How much money did Baltimore County pay
for the employer contribution to health
insurance for a Laborer 11 from 2010 to
2016?
Tr. 657.
Counsel for Bingman suggested the following response:
That they apply their good sense and
they base it upon the evidence and apply
their good sense as jurors.
Id.
Counsel for the County stated:
Your Honor, there’s been no evidence
Your Honor, there’s been no evidence

3

This amount is computed based on $774 per week for 312
weeks.

9

presented about health contributions, so I
don’t think we can answer that question.
Id. at 657-58.
The transcript reflects that the Court responded to the
note – over objection by the County:4
I have your note and attach a copy for your
reference. Please be advised in response to
your question that the information you
request is not in evidence and cannot be
provided to you.
However, you may, if you decide to do
so, state on the verdict sheet that, quote,
the jury has decided to award an amount
equal to the insurance payments for, blank,
a number of weeks, end quote. If you do so,
I will decide after the trial the legal
effect, if any, of that statement.
Tr. 658.
The jury rendered its verdict without a statement regarding
health insurance.

The jury verdict reflected an award of

$314,000.00 for 314 weeks of lost wages and an offset of
$218,000.00 for 218 weeks in which Bingman was not seeking
employment.

This, it is apparent that the jury had utilized the

total amount of $1,000.00 per week in computing the economic
loss award and its offset.

4

Your Honor, I would [object] only because it’s
asking the jury to speculate, which is absolutely one of the
rock-solid instructions we have. They’re not supposed to
speculate on damages. And if it’s not in evidence, it’s not in
evidence. Tr. 658.

10

The parties agreed that the lost wages were $774.00 per
week, hence the $1,000.00 per week jury finding was composed of
$774.00 of wages and an additional $326.00.

There appears no

doubt that, in addition to the wages, Bingman’s compensation
would include FICA contributions which were stated by counsel
for the County to be $18,594.00 per year or $357.58 per week.
Therefore, the jury did not, in fact, provide Bingman with any
award for health insurance payments.

Indeed, it appears that

the jury had utilized a weekly amount a bit less than it should
have.
Accordingly, the County is entitled to no relief with
regard to the amount of the economic damages.

C.

Non-Economic Damages

The Court instructed the jury regarding Bingman’s noneconomic damages claims:
You may award noneconomic damages for
any pain, suffering, or mental anguish Mr.
Bingman has proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that he experienced as a
consequence of the County’s wrongful in
termination – wrongful termination of his
employment.
In regard to all claims for noneconomic
damages, no evidence of the monetary value
of such intangible things as pain and
suffering has been, or need be, introduced
in evidence.

11

There is no exact standard for fixing
the compensation to be awarded for these
types of damage. Any award you make should
be fair in light of the evidence presented
at the trial. In determining the amount of
any noneconomic damages that you decide to
award, you should be guided by dispassionate
common sense.
You must use sound judgment in fixing
an award of damages, drawing reasonable
inferences from the facts in evidence. You
may not award damages based on sympathy,
speculation, or guesswork.
On the other hand, the law does not
require that Plaintiff Larry Bingman prove
the amount of his losses with mathematical
precision. But only with as much
definiteness and accuracy as circumstances
permit.
Any noneconomic damages that you may
award must be fair compensation, no more and
no less.
Tr. 585-86.
The County asserts that the non-economic damages award of
$298,000.00 with regard to Bingman’s wrongful employment was
excessive and unjustified.
“A jury’s award of compensatory damages will be set aside
on the grounds of excessiveness only if the verdict is against
the clear weight of the evidence, or is based upon evidence
which is false, or will result in a miscarriage of justice.”
Hetzel v. Cty. of Prince William, 89 F.3d 169, 171 (4th Cir.
1996) (citations omitted).

12

The Court does not agree with the County and finds the jury
verdict within a range of reasonableness.

The evidence is by no

means of the nature found inadequate in Hetzel.
The evidence was adequate to prove that, prior to his
wrongful termination, Bingman was a diligent employee who
enjoyed his job.

There was evidence that Bingman enjoyed his

daily routine and working with others.

Indeed, the evidence

established that Bingman worked though pain on various occasions
and even worked while undergoing chemotherapy.

By no means is

it appropriate to discount the toll on his joy of life caused by
his wrongfully being unemployed.

Moreover, the fact that

Bingman, after two years of fruitless job seeking, ceased
looking for a job could well have been attributed by the jury to
the effects of the wrongful termination of employment.
In regard to the County’s having subjected Bingman to a
wrongful medical examination or inquiry, the jury awarded a
minimal amount of $6,000.00 of non-economic damages.

It may be

true that Bingman did not present specific evidence regarding
anguish caused by the County’s unauthorized actions regarding
his medical condition.

However, it is not unreasonable to view

the $6,000.00 award as recognition that, to a degree, these
unauthorized actions contributed to the mental anguish caused by
his wrongful discharge and, that, pursuant to the instructions,

13

a separate award was required.

Moreover, the amount of the

award is sufficiently small to be fairly attributable to a
common sense determination that anyone would suffer at least
some anguish from the unwarranted invasion of privacy to which
Bingman was subjected.
The Court finds that the County is entitled to no relief
with regard to the jury’s award of non-economic damages.

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Baltimore County’s Motion for

Judgment Pursuant to Rule 50 or in the Alternative, Motion for
New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59 [ECF No. 108] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, on Tuesday, January 24, 2017.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

14