Quinn v. Pipe & Piping Supplies (U.S.A.), Ltd et al

Filing 165

OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMIE QUINN, an individual
Plaintiff,
File No. 2:09-cv-161
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
PIPE & PILING SUPPLIES (U.S.A.) LTD.,
a foreign profit corporation, and
RON GRIFFITH, an individual
Defendants.
/
OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to apply statutory damage caps
and amend the judgment. (Dkt. No. 144.) After a jury trial on this matter, the jury awarded
Plaintiff Quinn $25,000 in compensatory damages, $25,000 in punitive damages against
Defendant Griffith, and $175,000 in punitive damages against Defendant Pipe & Piling.
Defendants now claim that 42 U.S.C. § 1981a places limits on the total award available under
Title VII, that Pipe & Piling Supplies (U.S.A.) has fewer than 19 employees, and that
Plaintiff’s award should therefore be limited to a total award of $50,000 under 42 U.S.C. §
1981a(b)(3)(A). Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of statutory caps on Title VII
awards. However, Plaintiff argues that the $25,000 compensatory award can be apportioned
to her Eliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) claim, and that a higher statutory cap is
applicable to the punitive damage awards under Title VII.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s $25,000 compensatory award can be apportioned to
Plaintiff’s ELCRA claim. Defendants contend that Title VII provided the sole basis of
Plaintiff’s award. Defendants refer to the Court’s decision not to follow the proposed verdict
form submitted by Plaintiff, (Dkt. No. 138), and to Plaintiff’s agreement not to present
evidence or request separate jury instructions regarding employer liability under ELCRA
(Dkt. No. 137). (Dkt. No. 162 at 1-2.) Neither reference supports Defendants’ conclusion.
The Court opted not to adopt Plaintiff’s proposed jury verdict form because it was
unnecessarily elaborate and could potentially have confused the jury. As to the referenced
language in Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s Notice, Plaintiff merely agreed not to put
forth the additional evidence required to show employer liability under ELCRA, in exchange
for Defendants stipulation that damages against an employer under Title VII were not more
limited than under Michigan law.

Plaintiff did not waive her ELCRA claim against

Defendant Griffith.
The jury was not asked to consider ELCRA and Title VII separately because it would
not have been profitable for the jury to partition its consideration of a single event under two
statutes with virtually identical elements. The parties agree that the elements necessary to
show a hostile environment are the same under ELCRA as under Title VII, with the added
requirement that the harassing behavior be of a “sexual nature.” This added element has
never been at issue in this case, as Plaintiff’s allegations involved inappropriate touching,
professions of love, sexual advances, and other behavior of an obviously sexual nature. The

2

Court believes that streamlining the questions presented to the jury avoided potential
confusion of issues. However, even if it was error not to require separate consideration, it
was harmless. Thus, Plaintiff should be permitted to allocate the $25,000 compensatory
award to her ELCRA claim.
This still leaves the matter of punitive damages awarded under Title VII. Defendants
maintain that Plaintiff’s award against Defendant-Employer Pipe & Piling (U.S.A.) must be
capped at $50,000 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(A), which establishes the maximum
penalty for employers with fewer than 101 employees. Plaintiff does not dispute the
applicability of statutory caps, but argues that the cap should be determined based on the size
of Pipe & Piling as a whole, including the company’s large Canadian parent corporation.
The test for determining whether two companies are so interrelated that they may be
considered a single employer is outlined in Swallows v. Barnes & Noble Book Stores, Inc.,
128 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 1997).1
“In determining whether to treat two entities as a single employer,
courts examine the following four factors: (1) interrelation of
operations, i.e., common offices, common record keeping, shared bank
accounts and equipment; (2) common management, common directors
and boards; (3) centralized control of labor relations and personnel; and
(4) common ownership and financial control. York, 684 F.2d at 362.”
Id. at 993-94 (quoting York v. Tennessee Crushed Stone Ass’n, 684 F.2d 360 (6th Cir. 1982)).
None of these factors are exclusive or required in every case, Id. at 994, however, the
1

Although the claim in Swallows involves the ADA and ADEA rather than Title VII, the
Sixth Circuit noted that case law concerning the definition of “employer” under these three statutes
is interchangeable.
3

analysis “ultimately focuses upon whether the parent corporation was the final decisionmaker with regard to the employment issue underlying the litigation.”
The Swallows factors easily support a finding that Pipe & Piling’s operations in
Canada and the United States should be considered as a single employer for purposes of Title
VII. Both entities appear to be under the ownership and control of Mr. Jack Dym, who
serves as President of both entities. (Dkt. No. 152 at 8.) Defendant does not contest that Mr.
Dym has final authority over labor decisions in both the United States and Canada, and it is
clear from evidence presented at trial that Mr. Dym personally handled Pipe & Pilings
response to Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Ron Griffith. Common ownership and
control by a single individual, and the general appearance that Pipe & Piling (U.S.A.) is
merely a branch of the larger Pipe and Piling operation rather than a separate employer,
support a finding that Pipe & Piling should be considered a single entity for purposes of
statutory damage caps under Title VII.
In their reply brief, Defendants did not provide an analysis under Swallows. Instead,
Defendants point to Plaintiff’s inability to cite the specific number of Pipe & Piling
employees as proof that Plaintiff’s argument is baseless. However, Defendants, not Plaintiff,
are seeking the imposition of a statutory cap and amended judgment. Defendants therefore
carry the burden of showing that a reduction of the jury’s award is warranted. Defendants
have not provided any information on the number of persons employed by Pipe & Piling as
a whole. In light of the Court’s finding that Pipe & Piling should be considered as a single

4

employer, the Court will not amend judgment unless Defendant Pipe & Piling can show that,
as a whole, Pipe & Piling qualifies for a statutory cap that falls below the jury’s award.
The Court will defer ruling on Defendants’ motion so that Defendants have an
opportunity to provide employment information for Pipe & Piling as a whole. Defendants
may provide the Court with a short brief and supporting affidavit or other evidence
establishing the number of persons employed by Pipe & Piling as a whole within 10 days
from the entry of this opinion and corresponding order. Plaintiff shall have 10 days from the
filing of Defendants’ brief to respond.

Dated: June 20, 2011

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5