Kennedy v. Heritage of Edina, Inc.

Filing 81

ORDER FOR JUDGMENT(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 1/15/2015. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-71(DSD/JJG)
Hawa Kennedy,
Plaintiff,
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

v.
Heritage of Edina, Inc.,
Defendant.

This employment dispute arises out of the December 2010
termination of plaintiff Hawa Kennedy by defendant Heritage of
Edina, Inc. (Heritage). In her complaint, plaintiff alleged claims
for (1) race and national origin discrimination under disparate
treatment and hostile work environment theories, (2) retaliation
and

reprisal,

(3)

disability

discrimination,

contract, and (5) promissory estoppel.

(4)

breach

of

On August 4, 2014, the

court granted summary judgment to Heritage on Kennedy’s disability
discrimination, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel claims.
The remaining claims proceeded to jury trial from January 12-14,
2015.

After Kennedy rested, Heritage moved for judgment as a

matter of law on all claims.

After Heritage rested, Kennedy moved

for judgment as a matter of law on all claims, and Heritage renewed
its motion.

The court took the motions under advisement.

On January 14, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Kennedy on her disparate treatment claim but awarded no damages.1
The jury found for Heritage on all remaining claims.

As a result,

Heritage’s motion for judgment as a matter of law - except as it
relates to the disparate treatment claim - is now moot.

Likewise,

Kennedy’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on her disparate
treatment claim is moot.
As to the remaining claims, judgment as a matter of law is
appropriate only when all of the evidence, viewed in a light most
favorable

to

the

prevailing

party,

“points

one

way

and

is

susceptible of no reasonable inference sustaining [the prevailing
party's] position.”

Racicky v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 328 F.3d

389, 393 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).

The

deference,

but

court
the

gives

jury

the

cannot

be

jury's

verdict

afforded

“the

substantial
benefit

of

unreasonable inferences, or those at war with the undisputed
facts.”

McAnally v. Gildersleeve, 16 F.3d 1493, 1500 (8th Cir.

1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

After

review, the court finds that the jury's verdict was not a product

1

Specifically, the jury found that Kennedy’s race or national
origin, or both, was a motivating factor of Heritage’s conduct
toward her, but that Heritage would have taken the same actions
against Kennedy regardless of her race or national origin. As a
result, Kennedy was not entitled to damages.
See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting an award of damages if defendant
establishes that it “would have taken the same action in the
absence of the impermissible motivating factor”).
2

of unreasonable inferences and that the record supported the
verdict. As a result, neither Kennedy nor Heritage are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

Having found that the verdict is

supported by the evidence introduced at trial, the court will order
that judgment be entered in favor of Kennedy.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The court adopts the verdict of the jury;

2.

Judgment is in favor of Kennedy and against Heritage on

Kennedy’s disparate treatment claim;
3.

The jury found for Heritage on Kennedy’s hostile work

environment claim;
4.

The jury found for Heritage on Kennedy’s retaliation and

reprisal claim;
5.

The motion by Kennedy for judgment as a matter of law on

her hostile work environment claim is denied;
6.

The motion by Kennedy for judgment as a matter of law on

her retaliation and reprisal claim is denied;
7.

The motion by Heritage for judgment as a matter of law on

Kennedy’s disparate treatment claim is denied; and
8.

The

remaining

motions

by

Kennedy

and

Heritage

for

judgment as a matter of law are denied as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

January 15, 2015
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
3