Kennedy v. Heritage of Edina, Inc.
Filing
91
ORDER granting in part 83 Request for equitable relief filed by Hawa Kennedy (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 2/2/2015. (PJM) CC: Attorney General. (kt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-71(DSD/HB)
Hawa Kennedy,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Heritage of Edina, Inc.,
Defendant.
Gerald T. Laurie, Esq. and Laurie & Laurie, P.A., 1660
South Highway 100, Minneapolis, MN 55416, counsel for
plaintiff.
Kerri J. Nelson, Esq. and Bassford Remele, PA, 30 South
Sixth Street, Suite 3800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel
for defendant.
This matter is before the court upon the request by plaintiff
Hawa Kennedy for equitable relief pursuant to the Minnesota Human
Rights Act (MHRA), or in the alternative, to bring a motion to
reconsider the jury’s findings as a matter of law.
Based on a
review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the court grants the request in part.
BACKGROUND
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,
contract,
and
(3)
(5)
disability
promissory
discrimination,
estoppel.
ECF
(4)
No.
breach
1-1.
of
The
discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims
were brought under Title VII and the MHRA.
Id.
the
Heritage
court
granted
disability
summary
discrimination,
judgment
breach
estoppel claims.
ECF No. 21.
jury trial
January
from
to
of
On August 4, 2014,
contract,
on
and
Kennedy’s
promissory
The remaining claims proceeded to
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.
ECF No. 78.
Specifically, the jury found that Kennedy’s race or
national origin, or both, was a motivating factor in Heritage’s
adverse employment actions toward her, but that Heritage would have
taken the same actions regardless of her race or national origin.
Id. at 1.
The jury found for Heritage on all remaining claims.
On
January 15, 2015, the court issued an order adopting the jury
verdict, granting judgment in favor of Kennedy on her disparate
treatment claim, and denying the motions taken under advisement.
ECF No. 81.
2
On January 20, 2015, Kennedy filed a letter with the court
requesting equitable and other relief under the MHRA.
Pursuant to
Local Rule 7.1, Kennedy alternatively requested the opportunity to
bring a motion for reconsideration of the jury findings as a matter
of law.
DISCUSSION
I.
Request for Reconsideration
Motions to reconsider require the “court’s prior permission,”
which
will
be
circumstances.”
liable
in
a
granted
only
upon
a
D. Minn. LR 7.1(j).
mixed-motive
case
showing
of
“compelling
If a defendant is found
brought
under
Title
VII,
the
defendant may show that “it would have made the same decision in
the absence of a discriminatory motive.”
Griffith v. City of Des
Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 744 (8th Cir. 2004).
This defense “allows
the defendant employer to limit the plaintiff’s remedy, but does
not negate liability.”
Id. at 744-45.
As a result, an employer
who prevails on a “same decision” defense is found liable under
Title VII but cannot be required to pay damages.
See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting damages if employer “would have
taken
the
same
action
in
the
absence
of
the
impermissible
motivating factor”).
In her request, Kennedy argues that the court committed error
in submitting the same decision defense to the jury on her MHRA
3
claim.
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc., 417
N.W.2d 619, 626-27 (Minn. 1988) (declining to apply a same decision
analysis under the MHRA).
Kennedy failed, however, to make this
argument at any time before the instant request.
A motion to
reconsider should not “serve as the occasion to tender new legal
theories for the first time.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839
F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted); see also In re Potash Antitrust Litig., No. 3-93197, 1994 WL 2255, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 4, 1994) (“Reconsideration
should not serve as a vehicle to ... raise legal arguments which
could have been, but were not, raised or adduced during the
pendency of the motion of which reconsideration is sought.”).
Kennedy further argues that by generally objecting to the
inclusion
of the
same decision
defense
for both
preserved the issue for purposes of reconsideration.
disagrees.
claims,
she
The court
Before trial, Kennedy proposed that the jury consider
her Title VII and MHRA claims - and damages pursuant to those
claims - under the same analysis.
See ECF No. 56 at 35-36.
She
cannot now reverse course and argue that damages should have been
considered independently under both statutes.
See Lopez v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., 690 F.3d 869, 876 (8th Cir. 2012) (“[A]n erroneous
ruling generally does not constitute reversible error when it is
invited by the same party who seeks on appeal to have the ruling
overturned.”); see also Deweese v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., Nos. A13-
4
2152, A13-2160, 2014 WL 4388674, at *11 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 8,
2014) (rejecting argument that plaintiff had a right to a jury
determination as to damages on his MHRA claims, where plaintiff
first raised the argument in post-trial motion).
The court does
not find that compelling circumstances warrant reconsideration, and
as a result, Kennedy’s request is denied.
II.
Request for Equitable and Other Relief
Kennedy also asks the court to order various forms of relief
based on the finding of liability on her disparate treatment claim.
Under the MHRA, “[i]f the court or jury finds that the [defendant]
has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice, it shall issue an
order or verdict directing appropriate relief as provided by
section 363A.29, subdivisions 3 to 6.”
subd. 6.
Minn. Stat. § 363A.33,
Kennedy requests that the court order that Heritage (1)
cease and desist from unfair discriminatory practices found to
exist and to take such equitable action as will effectuate the
purposes of the MHRA, (2) pay a civil penalty, (3) pay compensatory
damages and damages for mental anguish and suffering, and (4) pay
attorney’s fees.1
As stated, the jury reached a verdict on compensatory damages
and damages for mental anguish and suffering, and the court will
not disrupt those findings here.
1
The jury did not consider,
The request for attorney’s fees is redundant to the motion
for attorney’s fees and other costs filed on January 28, 2015, and
the court will not consider it here. See ECF No. 86.
5
however, whether a civil penalty or other equitable relief is
warranted.
decision
These forms of relief are not precluded by the same
defense
under
Title
VII.
See
42
U.S.C.
§
2000e-
5(g)(2)(B)(i) (stating that the court may still “grant declaratory
relief, injunctive relief ..., and attorney’s fees and costs”).
And such relief is mandatory under the MHRA.
See Minn. Stat.
§ 363A.29, subd. 4(a) (“The [court] shall order any [defendant] to
be found in violation of any provision ... to pay a civil penalty
to the state.”); § 363A.29, subd. 3 (stating that the court “shall
issue an order directing the [defendant] to cease and desist from
the unfair discriminatory practice found to exist and to take such
affirmative
action
as
in
the
judgment
of
the
[court]
will
effectuate the purposes of this chapter”).2
In determining the amount of the civil penalty to be paid to
the state, the court considers “the seriousness and extent of the
violation, the public harm occasioned by the violation, whether the
violation was intentional, and the financial resources of the
[defendant].”
Id.
Based on these factors, the court finds that a
2
Heritage argues that Kennedy waived these forms of relief by
not requesting the jury to address them in the verdict. The court
disagrees. Courts often award additional relief under the MHRA
following a jury determination on damages.
See Briel v. Chang
O’Hara’s Bistro, Inc., No. 03-6549, 2005 WL 827087, at *4 (D. Minn.
Apr. 8, 2005); Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 471 N.W.2d
670, 681 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); see also Milner v. Farmers Ins.
Exchange, 748 N.W.2d 608, 610 (Minn. 2008) (discussing civil
penalty and injunctive relief under the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act).
6
civil penalty of $500 is warranted.
Although the jury found that
Heritage intentionally discriminated against Kennedy, the conduct
at issue here was less severe and pervasive than other cases in
which higher penalties were ordered.
See, e.g., Ewald v. Royal
Norwegian Embassy, No. 11-2116, 2014 WL 7409565, at *85 (D. Minn.
Dec. 31, 2014) (imposing a $1,000 penalty where female plaintiff
was paid 42 percent less than her male counterpart and was awarded
$270,594 in damages); Briel v. Chang O’Hara’s Bistro, Inc., No. 036549, 2005 WL 827087, at *4 (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2005) (assessing a
$1,000 penalty where plaintiff prevailed on sexual harassment,
constructive discharge, and retaliation claims).
Moreover, the court will direct Heritage to cease and desist
from discriminatory conduct under the MHRA.
The jury determined
that Kennedy was discriminated against on the basis of her race or
national origin, and as a result, such an order is mandatory.
Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 3.
See
The jury did not determine,
however, that this discrimination was experienced by others at
Heritage.
As a result, the court does not find that an order
directing Heritage to take other affirmative steps is warranted.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s request for equitable relief or to file a
motion to reconsider [ECF No. 83] is granted in part;
2.
Defendant is ordered to cease and desist from unfair
discriminatory practices in violation of the MHRA;
7
3.
Defendant shall pay $500 to the general fund of the State
of Minnesota for its violation of the MHRA, pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 363A.29, subd. 4; and
4.
The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this
order upon the attorney general of the State of Minnesota, pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 6.
Dated:
February 2, 2015
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
8
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?