Bonenberger v. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative for a New Trial [# 116 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's supplemen tal motion for equitable relief [# 115 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for taxation of costs [#114] and for attorneys fees and expenses [# 113 ] are granted to the following extent: The Clerk of Court shall tax as rec overable costs the amount of $4955.50 (which is the amount sought less $235 for private process servers). Plaintiff shall recover from defendant his reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $163,982.50 plus out-of-pocket expenses of $3716.59 (which is the amount sought plus $235 for private process servers). Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/20/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID BONENBERGER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV21 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on several post-trial motions. A jury found
for plaintiff David Bonenberger on his claims of race discrimination and
conspiracy related to defendants’ failure to transfer him to the position of Assistant
Director of the St. Louis Police Academy. Defendants have moved for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, to amend judgment, or in the alternative, for a new
trial. Plaintiff seeks attorney fees and expenses, costs, and supplemental equitable
relief. For the reasons that follow, I will deny defendants’ motion. I will also deny
plaintiff’s request for supplemental equitable relief. I will enter an award of
attorneys fees and costs in favor of plaintiff, who is the prevailing party.
Background
David Bonenberger, a white male, brought suit claiming that he was not
given the position of Assistant Director of the St. Louis Police Academy because

of his race. Bonenberger sued the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the
members of the Board of Police Commissioners in their official capacities,
Academy Director Lt. Michael Muxo, Lt. Col. Reggie Harris, and former Chief of
Police Daniel Isom, alleging race discrimination. He also alleged that Muxo and
Harris conspired to discriminate against him.
After a three day trial, the jury found in favor of Bonenberger against all
defendants on the race discrimination claim and against Muxo and Harris on the
conspiracy claim. It assessed Bonenberger’s actual damages as $200,000. The
jury awarded punitive damages against Muxo in the amount of $100,000, against
Harris in the amount of $300,000, and against Isom in the amount of $20,000. I
later denied Bonenberger’s motion seeking to be given the Academy position as an
equitable remedy, but granted other, limited, equitable relief.
Bonenberger and two other Sergeants applied for the position of Assistant
Academy Director. None of the applicants possessed the three years of
supervisory experience called for in the job posting. Neither Bonenberger nor
Angela Taylor, the African-American female who ultimately got the job, was
interviewed. In accordance with the chain of command, defendant Muxo
recommended Taylor for the position to defendant Harris, and defendant Harris
recommended Taylor to defendant Isom. Muxo and Harris had recommended to
Isom that Taylor be temporarily detached to the position, but Isom decided to make

-2-

it a permanent transfer. He did not look at any of the candidates’ applications
before making the decision.
Bonenberger testified that he was told by the Academy Director, defendant
Muxo, that he should not bother applying for the job because it was going to a
black female. Muxo said that this was at the direction of defendant Harris, Muxo’s
supervisor. A previous Assistant Director, Deborah Boelling, testified that Muxo
told her that Harris wanted a black female in the position. When Boelling
recommended plaintiff to Muxo, he told her that there was no way Harris would
allow a white man to be the Assistant Director. Boelling also testified that Muxo
told her Taylor was likely to get the position. After Taylor was selected, Muxo
told Bonenberger that Taylor was selected at Harris’ direction to “bring color down
to the Academy.” When Bonenberger filed a grievance, defendant Isom denied it
because Taylor had “more time in rank” and a clean disciplinary record. In fact,
Taylor did not have more time in rank than Bonenberger, and she did not have a
clean disciplinary record. Additionally, Bonenberger had more supervisory
experience than Taylor and, unlike Taylor, had extensive experience teaching at
the Academy and training officers in the field.
The Academy position would not have been a promotion for Bonenberger
because it did not provide a higher rank or more money. Bonenberger and others
testified, however, that it had significant supervisory duties and was a higher-

-3-

profile job that would allow Bonenberger to come into contact with more
command rank officers. Isom testified that it was a very important job within the
Police Department. Bonenberger testified that he considered it a promotion
because it was his “dream job” within the force, because he would be the
administrator of all the operations of the Academy and thus have an influence on
new officers. He also testified that, unlike other positions in the police force, it had
regular Monday through Friday working hours and regular holidays off.
Discussion
1. Defendants’ motion for judgment or a new trial
Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because plaintiff failed to present evidence that the police department discriminates
against Caucasians and because he failed to show he suffered an adverse
employment action. They argue alternatively that they are entitled to a new trial
because the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence, and additionally
because the jury instructions did not submit adverse employment action as an
element of the offense. They also assert that the evidence did not support the
jury’s finding of conspiracy, and that there was no evidentiary basis for the jury’s
award of punitive damages. Finally, they ask the court to vacate the injunctive
relief entered as to the new Chief of Police, since he was not Chief when these
events occurred.

-4-

In ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, Fed. R.
Civ. P., the court must make “all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party and view[] the facts most favorably to that party.” Lee ex rel. Lee v. Borders,
764 F.3d 966, 971 (8th Cir. 2014); see also In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 586
F.3d 547, 571 (8th Cir. 2009).
A motion for new trial under Rule 59, Fed. R. Civ. P., is appropriate “when
the outcome is against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a
miscarriage of justice.” Bank of America N.A. v. JB Hanna, LLC, 766 F.3d 841,
851 (8th Cir. 2014). When the jury instructions are challenged, the question is
“whether the jury instructions, taken as a whole, fairly and adequately represent the
evidence and applicable law in light of the issues presented to the jury in a
particular case.” Lee, 764 F.3d at 972. Granting a new trial because of jury
instructions “is only warranted if a party’s substantial rights are prejudiced by
instructional error.” Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 720 (8th
Cir. 2008).
A. Intentional Discrimination
Defendants argue that because this is a reverse discrimination case, plaintiff
was required to present something more than evidence that he was discriminated
against because of his race. Defendants rely on Hammer v. Ashcroft, which stated
that to make a prima facie showing of reverse race discrimination a plaintiff must

-5-

show “that background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is
that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” 383 F.3d 722, 724
(8th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). Hammer analyzed the evidence under
the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792 (1973).
In this case, plaintiff presented direct evidence of discrimination,
specifically, testimony indicating that the decision-makers had determined, in
advance, that a white male would not be hired for the position. This evidence
shows “a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the
challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that
an illegitimate criterion actually motivated” the decision. Griffith v. City of Des
Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004). The parties have not cited any direct
evidence or mixed motive cases applying the Hammer statement about being an
“unusual employer.” Such a case is unlikely to arise, however, because in most
cases, like in this one, the direct evidence is evidence that the defendant is just such
an “unusual employer.” In other words, whether this issue is analyzed under the
direct evidence standards or under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the
evidence presented here – that race was an explicit consideration in the decision –
is sufficient.

-6-

B. Adverse Employment Action
Defendants assert that plaintiff did not show that he suffered an adverse
employment action because the position he applied for was not a promotion. “A
transfer constitutes an adverse employment action when the transfer results in a
significant change in working conditions . . .” Fisher v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, 225
F.3d 915, 920 (8th Cir. 2000) ; see also Tadlock v. Powell, 291 F.3d 541, 546-47
(8th Cir. 2002); Ledbetter v. Alltel Corporate Services, Inc., 437 F.3d 717, 724 (8th
Cir. 2006). There was ample evidence that this job had many advantages and that
failure to obtain it was adverse employment action. The position was more
complex, was prestigious and had a higher profile, and gave the person in the job
the opportunity to interact with far more people, including many in higher
positions, which would provide more opportunity for advancement. This is
sufficient to show an adverse action in a direct evidence case such as this.
Because this is not a retaliation or harassment case, I continue to believe that
it was not necessary to submit the adverse employment action issue to the jury as
an element of the claim. The evidence was very clear that the Assistant Academy
Director position was a high-profile, prestigious position, and that the person in
that position would have the opportunity to get to know higher ranking officers,
including the top command of the police department. Defendants argue that
because promotions are determined by a test, plaintiff cannot show that he lost a

-7-

future promotion because he was not transferred to the Academy. But plaintiff
does not have to show that he lost a specific job or lost a specific promotion in
addition to his loss of the Academy position. Under the cases cited above,
different job duties or the loss of a more prestigious position can be seen as adverse
employment actions even in retaliation cases. The jury found that the defendants
intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in deciding who would get the position,
and I conclude that the failure to transfer was an adverse employment action as a
matter of law.
C. Conspiracy
Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to present a submissible case of
conspiracy against defendants Harris and Muxo. As the parties agree, to prove his
conspiracy claim, Bonenberger was required to prove that two or more persons
conspired to deprive him of a constitutional right, that at least one of those persons
took an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that Bonenberger was
thereby injured. See e.g. White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 814 (8th Cir. 2008).
The parties’ dispute is over the first element.
Plaintiff testified that Muxo told him, once before the selection of Taylor
and once after her selection, that Harris had directed that the position go to a black
female. Witness Boelling testified that Muxo told her, in advance, that Harris had
made the decision to place a black female in the position. This is not “speculation

-8-

and conjecture” as defendants claim. Instead, it is an explicit admission by one of
the co-conspirators that they had reached an agreement to violate the constitutional
rights of any white person who applied for the job. There was more than sufficient
evidence to submit the case to the jury, and the jury’s verdict is not against the
weight of the evidence.
D. Punitive Damages
Defendants argue that there was no basis to submit the case on punitive
damages, and in particular that there was no basis for submission of punitive
damages as to defendant Isom. As set out above, there was direct evidence from
two witnesses that Muxo and Harris conspired to discriminate against plaintiff and
did discriminate against him on the basis of his race. This evidence showed that
they explicitly discussed denying the job to white applicants, and is sufficient to
show the malice or reckless indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights needed
to support an award of punitive damages as to them. See MacGregor v.
Mallinckrodt, Inc., 373 F.3d 923, 931 (8th Cir. 2004). Although the evidence as to
Isom is more limited, it is undisputed that he provided two false reasons for
selecting Taylor – that Taylor had more time in rank and a clean disciplinary
record. There was also evidence that Isom had rejected Harris’s first choice for the
job, another black female who everyone except Harris believed was unqualified.
Isom’s knowledge of the applicants’ races, failure to look at any of the

-9-

applications, and providing false reasons for the decision when plaintiff filed a
grievance are sufficient, when considered together and in light of all the other
evidence, for a reasonable jury to conclude that Isom also acted with reckless
indifference to plaintiff’s rights.
2. Motions directed to equitable relief
Defendants urge that I amend the judgment as to the equitable relief directed
to the current Chief of Police. That relief was limited to a general injunction that
the entire department not discriminate and that the department comply with its own
policies related to discrimination. It also required Muxo, Harris, and the current
Chief to undergo a small amount of anti-discrimination training. Plaintiff, on the
other hand, has filed a supplemental motion for equitable relief, arguing that after
my previous order for equitable relief, defendants retaliated against plaintiff by
transferring Muxo to a district office within the same building as plaintiff. When
plaintiff’s lawyer complained about that, the department then moved plaintiff to a
different platoon, which was also in the same building. Plaintiff complains that
both of these actions were taken in retaliation. Defendants have provided an
affidavit from the current Chief of Police indicating legitimate, non-retaliatory
reasons for the reassignments.
Plaintiff has not shown that these actions were taken in retaliation. Muxo is
not in his chain of command and is not his supervisor. Although this court has

- 10 -

authority to enforce its own orders, nothing in the orders previously issued means
that the Court intends to become a super-personnel office over the police
department, or that plaintiff is immune from the normal personnel decisions that
might affect any employee. Plaintiff won a large money judgment and a limited
equitable remedy. He did not win the right to never again have his assignments
changed. The supplemental motion for equitable relief will be denied.
3. Attorneys’ fees and costs
As the prevailing party, plaintiff is entitled to recover his taxable costs of the
action under Rule 54(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. As a party prevailing in a §1983 and
Title VII case, plaintiff is additionally entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees
and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). He seeks
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $163,982.50; expenses other than taxable costs in
the amount of $3481.59; and taxable costs in the amount of $5190.50.
Defendants object that certain items are not properly taxable. Rule 54(d)(1)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 list specific items that are taxable as costs. The only item on
plaintiff’s bill of costs that is not allowed as a taxable cost is the private process
server fee in the amount of $235. I will therefore remove that amount from the
taxable costs, but it is nevertheless a reasonable part of a reasonable attorneys’ fee,
so I will add it to the fee award.

- 11 -

Defendants do not challenge the amount of time spent on the case by any of
plaintiff’s counsel. Their only objection to the fee amount is that the hourly rate
charged by one of the associates who worked on the case should be $175 instead of
the $250 sought by plaintiff. Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence that the
hourly rate of $250 is reasonable and customary, and so I will not cut the request
for that.
Finally, defendants object that the mediator’s fee should not be included in
the attorneys’ fee award. This fee is not a proper taxable cost under § 1920, see
Brisco-Wade v. Carnahan, 297 F.3d 781, 782-83 (8th Cir. 2002), but plaintiff did
not include this amount in his bill of costs. Rather, he seeks it as part of the
attorneys’ fee award. This is a fee-shifting case, and mediators’ fees are a
reasonable expense of the litigation and therefore a legitimate part of an attorneys’
fee award.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative for a New Trial [#116] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s supplemental motion for
equitable relief [#115] is denied.

- 12 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for taxation of costs
[#114] and for attorneys fees and expenses [#113] are granted to the following
extent:
The Clerk of Court shall tax as recoverable costs the amount of $4955.50
(which is the amount sought less $235 for private process servers).
Plaintiff shall recover from defendant his reasonable attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $163,982.50 plus out-of-pocket expenses of $3716.59 (which is the
amount sought plus $235 for private process servers).

_______________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 20th day of October, 2014.

- 13 -