Cervantes v. Emerald Cascade Restaurant Systems, Inc
Filing
74
ORDER granting 65 defendant's motion to reduce punitive damages award. The punitive damages award in this matter is reduced to $5,398.00. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 3/8/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DN)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
JOHN CERVANTES,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EMERALD CASCADE RESTAURANT )
SYSTEMS, INC., dba JACK-IN-THE-BOX,)
INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
3:11-CV-0242-VPC
ORDER
12
Before the court is the motion of defendant Emerald Cascade Restaurant Systems, Inc. d.b.a.
13
Jack-in-the-Box (“defendant” or “Jack-in-the-Box’) for an order reducing the jury’s punitive damages
14
award pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (#65). Plaintiff John Cervantes (“plaintiff”) opposed the motion
15
(#68), and defendant replied (#70).
16
I.
Procedural History
17
This is a punitive damages case concerning nominal compensatory damages brought by an
18
employee who claimed race discrimination. The case went trial before a jury on November 19, 2012,
19
and so the court states the facts and interprets the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
20
In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2001). The jury reached a verdict and found that
21
plaintiff’s origin and/or race were the sole reason and/or motivating factor for the defendant to deny
22
plaintiff training, deny him promotions and/or terminate his employment (#61). The jury plaintiff
23
awarded $53.98 in compensatory damages for emotional distress and $500,000.00 in punitive damages.
24
Id.
25
Plaintiff originally worked as first assistant manager for a Qdoba restaurant in Fallon, Nevada
26
for about five months before it closed. Tr. 113-116. He was briefly transferred to a Qdoba in Spanish
27
Springs, Nevada, but the commute from Fallon was difficult, so plaintiff began to explore the possibility
28
1
of a position at the Fallon Jack-in-the-Box, since he knew that the restaurants were under joint
2
ownership. Tr. 117, 392-93. Plaintiff interviewed with Jack-in-the-Box area manager Chris Pennington
3
(“Mr. Pennington”) to request the transfer. Tr. 118-19. Mr. Pennington told plaintiff about the job
4
description, job requirements, the training program and possible benefits that would be available in the
5
future as an assistant manager. Tr. 381. Mr. Pennington explained the bonus program that was available
6
for assistant managers and managers once their training was completed. Tr. 381. The training program
7
included knowing all of the employee positions in the restaurant, which generally took four to six weeks.
8
Tr. 382. Depending on how quickly a person could learn, he or she would next learn about management
9
responsibilities. Tr. 382. There is no specific time frame for learning management duties, since it
10
depends on how quickly an individual learns and his or her own performance. Tr. 382.
11
Plaintiff began work at Jack-in-the-Box in April 2008, as first assistant manager at the same
12
salary he had a Qdoba – $32,000. Tr. 166-167. When plaintiff began work at Jack-in-the-Box, he
13
reported to the general manager, Pablo Gomez (“Mr. P. Gomez”).1 Tr. 167. Ester Rios (“Ms. Rios”)
14
was then assistant store manager, the same position plaintiff held. Tr. 422-23. Two of Ms. Rios’s sisters
15
also worked at the restaurant. Tr. 137.
16
At about the same time plaintiff came to work at Jack-in-the-Box, Mr. P. Gomez and Mr.
17
Pennington were approved for transfers to Colorado. Tr. 387, 423. At that time, Mr. Pennington
18
promoted Ms. Rios to replace Mr. P. Gomez as manager because she had worked there for several years
19
as assistant manager at the Fallon store, and she had demonstrated ability in achieving results at the
20
restaurant. Tr. 387. Mr. P. Gomez continued to serve as manager until his transfer in September 2008.
21
Tr. 426.
22
The practice at the restaurant was that the restaurant manager worked the morning shift, which
23
included duties such as scheduling, inventory, food ordering, and bank deposits. Tr. 426-27. The
24
assistant manager worked in the afternoons or evenings to cover the remaining shifts. Tr. 427. When
25
Ms. Rios was first assistant manager, she worked the later shifts, and when she was promoted to
26
1
27
Mr. Pablo Gomez and Mr. Martin Gomez are brothers, so the court refers to them as “Mr. P.
Gomez” and “Mr. M. Gomez.” Tr. 357.
28
2
1
manager, she worked the morning shift and assigned plaintiff to her former shifts later in the day. Tr.
2
427-28.
3
A.
Training
4
Mr. P. Gomez was responsible for plaintiff’s training, which included training on the fry station,
5
the hamburger station, the drive-though station, and maintenance. Tr. 121, 128. Plaintiff was also
6
trained on crew and shift leader training, as well as a ServSafe classes to learn proper service procedure
7
so plaintiff could become certified in ServSafe. Tr. 123, 127, 170.
8
When he started work, Mr. P. Gomez gave plaintiff a team leader training booklet, and he signed
9
the booklet in June 2008, to signify plaintiff had completed all of the activities in the booklet, including
10
team leader practice duties. Tr. 167-169. Plaintiff was also given a training binder that contained the
11
following assistant manager training duties: food costs, safety and security, equipment, guest services,
12
labor management, cash management, administration, foresight, and ServSafe. Tr. 169-70. Mr. P.
13
Gomez reviewed the training manual with plaintiff and provided answers to questions so that plaintiff
14
could complete the manual. Tr. 171. Plaintiff also completed several computer-based training (“CBT”)
15
modules. Tr. 121, 171-72.
16
Plaintiff testified that he should have received training in managerial duties, such as bank
17
deposits, ordering, scheduling, and other office duties. Tr. 122. Although he did not perform these
18
duties while at work, plaintiff admitted that Mr. P. Gomez showed him how do food ordering, bank
19
deposits, inventory, and scheduling. Tr. 185-87. While Mr. P. Gomez was still manager, Ms. Rios
20
testified that she attempted to train plaintiff in how do conduct an inventory, but he told her he already
21
knew how to do this. Tr. 424-25. Plaintiff did not complain to Ms. Rios about scheduling, that he
22
wanted to do inventory and food ordering, or that he lacked training to work on his own, so she
23
scheduled him to run shifts on his own. Tr. 428, 433-34. Ms. Rios testified that plaintiff did not
24
complain to her that he lacked training to work on his own. Tr. 434.
25
B.
Complaints to the Area Manager Mr. Pennington: Summer 2008
26
Sometime in July, after plaintiff had been working at Jack-in-the-Box for three months, he
27
complained to Mr. Pennington that he was not getting adequate training. Tr. 128. Plaintiff was
28
3
1
concerned that he was routinely scheduled for the late shift, that he was not scheduled to work in the
2
morning, and that he felt that after eight weeks, his training had stopped. Tr. 128-29. In addition to lack
3
of training, plaintiff complained that he was not receiving bonuses and that he was subject to unequal
4
treatment, including discriminatory slurs. Tr. 129-30. According to plaintiff, Mr. Pennington told him
5
not to worry, that plaintiff would be trained before Messrs. Pennington and P. Gomez left for Colorado,
6
but that he sidestepped the other concerns. Tr. 129.
7
As for racial slurs, Mr. Pennington testified that plaintiff never complained of discrimination
8
because he is not of Mexican origin, that other managers or employees made comments about his race
9
or national origin, or suggested he was not getting trained because he was not Mexican. Tr. 389. Had
10
plaintiff made these complaints, Mr. Pennington said he would have conducted a store-level
11
investigation and interviewed the individuals alleged to have made the comments. Tr. 390. If that was
12
not possible, the matter would be turned over to human resources for investigation. Tr. 390.
13
Mr. Pennington did recall that plaintiff complained that other employees were not treating him
14
with respect and that when plaintiff told employees to do something, they would not listen or would not
15
respond in a positive manner. Tr. 390. Mr. Pennington suggested that since he was still in training,
16
plaintiff should consider going to the other managers to ask for help in addressing these concerns. Tr.
17
391. He also told plaintiff that a key to getting respect is to give respect to the employees and other
18
managers; otherwise, people might believe that he was unwilling to learn and listen and just wanted to
19
get through the training so he could be in charge. Tr. 391. Plaintiff responded that he would work on
20
this. Tr. 392. Mr. Pennington testified that before he moved to Colorado in mid-July 2008, he met a
21
final time with Mr. P. Gomez and told him to make sure he completed the assistant manager book with
22
plaintiff to insure plaintiff completed his training. Tr. 386-87. Mr. Pennington called Mr. P. Gomez
23
after his transfer to Colorado and confirmed that plaintiff was completing his training. Tr. 386.
24
C.
Caleb Sayler becomes Area Manager: August 2008
25
Upon Mr. Pennington’s departure for Colorado, Caleb Sayler (“Mr. Sayler”) was made area
26
manager, which included the Fallon store. Tr. 300. During his first month on the job, Mr. Sayler visited
27
his new stores to meet the management teams, learn about sales trends, and how the stores were
28
4
1
functioning. Tr. 301. Mr. Sayler met with Mr. P. Gomez before he left for Colorado, and he explained
2
that plaintiff was new with the store and was finishing his assistant manager training. Tr. 301.
3
However, Mr. P. Gomez also reported that there was some friction among plaintiff and the other store
4
employees, which Mr. P. Gomez characterized as “little things,” such as kidding getting out of hand.
5
Tr. 301-02. Plaintiff was upset about a particular incident in which plaintiff threw a pickle at someone,
6
and the employee tossed water back at him. Tr. 301-02. Plaintiff asked Mr. P. Gomez to reprimand that
7
employee, and Mr. P. Gomez agreed to do so, but told plaintiff that managers were expected to be role
8
models. Tr. 302.
9
After Mr. P. Gomez left the store, Mr. Martin Gomez (“Mr. M. Gomez”) came in to assist with
10
the transition when Ms. Rios became manager. Mr. M. Gomez reported to Mr. Sayler about
11
communication problems plaintiff was having with the other employees. Tr. 304-05. Mr. Sayler
12
decided it was time to take some action, so he provided plaintiff with some written coaching tips to
13
enhance communications with employees. Tr. 305. This included effective communications, tone of
14
voice, body language, words that are used, courtesy, praise, and disciplining employees in private. Tr.
15
305.2 Mr. M. Gomez gave plaintiff the coaching tips, but plaintiff declined to sign it. Tr. 181.
16
D.
17
After he declined to sign the coaching tips, plaintiff traveled to Reno to meet with John
18
Thompson (“Mr. Thompson”) at the Reno Jack-in-the-Box office. Tr. 182-83. Although Mr. Thompson
19
had no supervisory control over the Fallon store and told plaintiff as much, Mr. Thompson agreed to
20
speak with plaintiff. Tr. 187, 293. Plaintiff testified that he told Mr. Thompson about his complaints:
21
lack of training, no bonuses, disrespect, unequal treatment, and discrimination. Tr. 184. After hearing
22
from plaintiff, Mr. Thompson again explained that these issues had to be resolved within his store and
23
with his area manager. Tr. 187. Mr. Thompson also told him there is an ethics hotline employees can
24
call, although because the Fallon store is a franchise, it may not help, as it is mainly used for corporate
Meeting between Plaintiff and John Thompson: September 15, 2008
25
26
2
27
Trial Exhibit 9 was not admitted into evidence; however, the court is relying on Mr. Sayler’s
testimony.
28
5
1
stores. Tr. 188. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Thompson told plaintiff there was really nothing he could
2
do for him, so plaintiff thanked Mr. Thompson and left. Tr. 188.
3
Mr. Thompson also testified about his meeting with plaintiff. Mr. Thompson recalled that
4
plaintiff complained about his lack of training, that he had not received a bonus yet, that he had not been
5
given the combination to the safe to do deposits, and that he felt it was unfair that Ms. Rios’s sisters did
6
not have to work graveyard when he did. Tr. 291-295. Mr. Thompson testified that plaintiff did not
7
complain about being treated differently because of his race or national origin, he did not report a claim
8
of discrimination, he did not state that managers had made comments about his race or national origin,
9
and he did not report that managers had made comments to him about not being Mexican. Tr. 292-93.
10
Had plaintiff made such complaints, Mr. Thompson would have reported those concerns to the area
11
manager who would have gone straight to human resources. Tr. 296-97. Mr. Thompson did not make
12
such a report because plaintiff did not make those kinds of complaints about his workplace. Tr. 297.
13
Mr. Thompson testified that he told plaintiff he would pass on plaintiff’s concerns to the new area
14
manager, Mr. Sayler. Tr. 293. Mr. Thompson did not speak to plaintiff again, but he did report his
15
conversation with plaintiff to Mr. Sayler that same day when Mr. Sayler visited the Reno office. Tr. 293-
16
94.
17
E.
Mr. Sayler’s Meeting with Plaintiff after the Thompson Meeting:
September 18, 2008
18
Between plaintiff’s meetings with Mr. M. Gomez and Mr. Thompson, Ms. Rios also spoke with
19
Mr. Sayler about plaintiff’s problems in communicating with other employees. Tr. 312. By this time,
20
Mr. Sayler had spoken with Mr. Thompson about his meeting with plaintiff, and so Mr. Sayler went to
21
the Fallon store to meet with plaintiff on September 18, 2008. Tr. 188, 314. Plaintiff testified that he
22
told Mr. Sayler he was concerned that his training had stopped, that he was being treated unequally, and
23
he was experiencing discrimination. Tr. 137. Mr. Sayler asked plaintiff what plaintiff thought should
24
be done, and plaintiff responded by drawing a pictograph of Mr. P. Gomez, Ms. Rios, and her two
25
sisters. Tr. 137. Plaintiff explained that the problem was that since Mr. P. Gomez was leaving for
26
Colorado, Ms. Rios would become the manager, and one sister would become a first assistant, and one
27
28
6
1
sister would become second assistant. Tr. 138. Because plaintiff was hired as a first assistant manager,
2
his hiring prevented the promotions of Ms. Rios’s sisters. Tr. 138. According to plaintiff, Mr. Sayler
3
acknowledged the nepotism, but commented that removing one sister would not solve the issue; instead,
4
Mr. Sayler suggested that plaintiff consider a move to the Fernley store as a solution. Tr. 138. Plaintiff
5
lacked transportation to Fernley, but he told Mr. Sayler he would consider this. Tr. 197. Some time after
6
this meeting, plaintiff told Mr. Sayler in either a phone call or during an in-person visit to the store that
7
plaintiff did not have transportation to transfer to Fernley. Tr. 197. Plaintiff failed to return to work
8
shortly after this. Tr. 198.
9
Mr. Sayler confirmed that he and plaintiff met to discuss plaintiff’s concerns. Tr. 314. Plaintiff
10
acknowledged that Mr. Pennington and Mr. P. Gomez had spoken with plaintiff about his
11
communication problems with other store employees. Tr. 314-15. Plaintiff again expressed his concern
12
that the other employees did not respect him, that he was left to do “the dirty work,” and he was not
13
being properly trained as a manager. Tr. 191-93. Mr. Sayler talked with plaintiff about being a team
14
player and how people can earn respect. Tr. 315-16.
15
Mr. Sayler testified that plaintiff did not tell him he was suffering from discrimination, he did
16
not tell him that other managers made comments about his race or national origin, and he did not report
17
statements Ms. Rios or Mr. P. Gomez made about not being given duties because he is not Mexican.
18
Tr. 325-26.
19
Plaintiff also complained that he hadn’t received any bonus, and Mr. Sayler agreed to look into
20
this. Tr. 317. However, the reason plaintiff had received no bonuses is that plaintiff had not completed
21
his training. The final step in the assistant manager training process was completion of a manager
22
training class, but these classes are offered only once a quarter to insure there are enough people to
23
participate in the class. Tr. 318-19. The next assistant manager training course was scheduled for late
24
October or early November 2008. Tr. 319. By that time, plaintiff stopped showing up for work, he was
25
deemed to have abandoned his job, and he was terminated. Tr. 329.
26
27
28
7
1
2
3
F.
Summary of Discrimination and Slurs
Plaintiff testified that three people at the Fallon store engaged in discriminatory treatment and/or
made racial slurs, which are summarized below:
4
1.
5
Mr. Pablo Gomez
a.
When plaintiff admonished other employees that they were not throwing
out burgers after a certain time period, they became irate and responded
that since they had trained him, he didn’t know what he was talking
about. Tr. 130-31. Plaintiff complained to Mr. P. Gomez who responded
that plaintiff did not get respect from the other employees because he had
to earn their respect and because he is not Mexican. Tr. 131. When
plaintiff replied that he is of Spanish descent, Mr. P. Gomez said this
didn’t count, since plaintiff did not speak Spanish. Tr. 131.
b.
Mr. P. Gomez scheduled plaintiff for work six days in a row, and when
plaintiff asked why, Mr P. Gomez told him he had had two days off the
prior week. Tr. 132. This happened again, and when plaintiff asked
about it, Mr. P. Gomez replied, “Your ass is mine, I can work you seven
days in a row. I can be a real asshole. Besides, you’re white, you can
handle it.” Tr. 132.
c.
Plaintiff called in sick once with a doctor’s excuse, and Mr. P. Gomez
wrote him up for calling in sick because plaintiff failed to follow the
policy that requires employees to call in sick two hours before their shifts
start. Tr. 132.
d.
One time there was a managers’ meeting and everyone was speaking in
Spanish. Plaintiff asked Mr. P. Gomez to ask everyone to speak English
and Mr P. Gomez replied, “Don’t worry about it. I’ll translate to you
later.” Tr. 132-33. Plaintiff walked out of the meeting and went home.
Tr. 133.
e.
One time plaintiff asked Mr. P. Gomez why he was not receiving a bonus
check like the other managers, and Mr. P. Gomez replied that plaintiff
was not contributing to the restaurant. Tr. 124.3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.
Ms. Rios
21
a.
22
23
After Ms. Rios became the manager, she kept him working late nights,
she did not give him the combination to the safe like Ms. Rios’s sister,
who was the second assistant manager, and Ms. Rios told him that only
Mexicans are given the safe combination. Tr. 133.
24
3
27
There was no evidence that plaintiff did not receive a bonus on account of discrimination, or
that he would have received bonuses if he had been eligible. The corporate franchise group decided
store bonuses, not store management. Tr. 326-27. An assistant manager had to be certified to receive
bonuses, and since plaintiff had not yet attended the assistant manager training, he was not yet eligible
for the program. Tr. 318-20. By the time of the next training course, plaintiff had left his employment
with defendant. Tr. 318-19.
28
8
25
26
1
b.
There were five shift leaders and two of them were Ms. Rios’s sisters,
which plaintiff felt was inappropriate. Tr. 133.
c.
Plaintiff asked Ms. Rios to train him in the office and to train with her in
the morning. Tr. 135.
2
3
4
3.
5
Mr. M. Gomez
a.
6
7
On September 18, 2008, the same day that plaintiff met with Mr. Sayler,
Mr. M. Gomez pulled plaintiff aside and told him, “You’re either going
to quit, they’re going to be making life hard for you, or something is
going to happen, and it’s going to be your word against them, and you’re
never going to fit into the family here, so you might as well work with
white people, he said, with your kind.” Tr. 139, 197-98.
8
Plaintiff knew that Erika Ramos was the human resources managers, but he did not report these incidents
9
to her. Tr. 198-99. Plaintiff testified that he did not think it would make any difference, since he had
10
already complained to his supervisors. Tr. 199.
11
G.
Plaintiff’s Employment Ends
12
Plaintiff believes that October 14, 2008 was his last day of work at Jack-in-the-Box. Tr. 201.
13
Plaintiff did not report to work because he had been arrested for a DUI and was in jail. Tr. 203. When
14
plaintiff failed to show up for work, Ms. Rios called him, but was unable to reach him. Tr. 329-30.
15
Defendant then sent plaintiff a letter and asked him to contact the store. If he failed to do so, defendant
16
would assume he had abandoned his job. Tr. 330-31. Plaintiff never responded to the letter sent to his
17
last known address, and it was returned unopened. Tr. 330-31. On October 19, 2008, Mr. Sayler
18
completed a termination form, noting that it appeared plaintiff had abandoned his job. Tr. 330.
19
Plaintiff was initially incarcerated at the Churchill County Jail until he was extradited to Cobb
20
County, Georgia, for a probation violation. Tr. 202-03. Plaintiff remained in prison until October 14,
21
2009. Tr. 202-05. Although plaintiff testified that had he not suffered discrimination at Jack-in-the22
Box, he would have the opportunity to be working there, he admitted that because he was incarcerated
23
from the time of his DUI arrest until he was released one year later in October 2009, he could not work
24
anywhere during that time period. Tr. 204.
25
26
27
28
9
1
H.
Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination: Nevada Equal Rights
Commission
2
On October 29, 2008, while he was incarcerated, plaintiff submitted a charge of discrimination
3
to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission under penalty of perjury. Tr. 206. Plaintiff attested that the
4
latest date of alleged discrimination was October 22, 2008, even though he was in jail on that date and
5
not working. Tr. 206-07. Plaintiff also attested that he left employment with Jack-in-the-Box “for the
6
sake of his sanity and health to remove [myself] from the hostile environment.” Tr. 209. Plaintiff
7
acknowledged that he gave no notice of his resignation, but stated in the charge of discrimination that
8
he would never become an area manager because he had to remove himself from the hostile work
9
environment. Tr. 210. Although plaintiff was in jail and could not work anywhere, he felt that the
10
discriminatory conduct caused him to drink, which resulted in his DUI, which, in turn, resulted in a
11
probation violation that sent him back to prison for a year. Tr. 210-11. In the remedy request, plaintiff
12
claimed $640,000.00 in lost salary based on a twenty-year career with Jack-in-the-Box, as well as a
13
claim of $250,000.00 for pain and suffering. Tr. 212-13. Plaintiff did not disclose to the Nevada Equal
14
Rights Commission or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission that he was incarcerated and
15
could not have continued to work at Jack-in-the-Box. Tr. 214-15.
16
I.
Emotional Distress
17
Plaintiff completed a remedy request on the Nevada Equal Rights Commission complaint, and
18
asked for compensatory damages for medical costs in the amount of $53.98 for Xanax and Prozac
19
prescriptions for anxiety and depression because of “what he was going through” at work. Tr. 147-48.
20
Plaintiff testified about his pain and suffering as follows:
21
It was disheartening. I was angry, you know, it caused a lot of anxiety.
I was uneasy about – I didn’t want to get out of bed and go to work
because I just – I felt that no one in the upper management was doing
anything so that gave them more power to – that gave them more – more
reason to think that it was okay. And I was very sad. I was apprehended
[sic] with – just a lot of emotions, angry, sad, I was completely powerless
to say anything.
22
23
24
25
Tr. 215.
26
27
28
10
1
Dr. Robert Hemenway (“Dr. Hemenway”), also testified about his treatment of plaintiff. Dr.
2
Hemenway, who specializes in the treatment of sex offenders, began seeing plaintiff weekly in 2006,
3
as a term of plaintiff’s release on probation for a sexual offense. Tr. 267-68, 271. Dr. Hemenway met
4
with plaintiff six times in a two-year period. Tr. 282. Dr. Hemenway recalled that plaintiff discussed
5
his unhappiness at work in May 2008, that the Hispanic people who worked with him discriminated
6
against him, and that he felt like the odd man out. Tr. 269, 279. In May 2008, while plaintiff was
7
working at Jack-in-the-Box, plaintiff also told Dr. Hemenway he was trying to get another job in
8
Colorado, which would include a $10,000 bonus and moving expenses. Tr. 279-80. In June 2008,
9
plaintiff talked with Dr. Hemenway about his efforts to overturn his sex offense conviction in Georgia,
10
and Dr. Hemenway’s notes contain no notations about issues with Jack-in-the-Box. Tr. 280. Dr.
11
Hemenway had a final phone meeting with plaintiff on October 15, 2008, and plaintiff asked Dr.
12
Hemenway to write a letter to the judge in Georgia stating that plaintiff did not commit the offense in
13
that state and that the victim was lying, but Dr. Hemenway did not write the letter. Tr. 281-82.
14
None of Dr. Hemenway’s notes contains any reference to Jack-in-the Box or any alleged
15
emotional distress due to discrimination at Jack-in-the-Box. Tr. 282. Dr. Hemenway’s notes do mention
16
other problems plaintiff discussed: financial problems, problems with his sex offense conviction, family
17
problems, and problems keeping a job. Tr. 274-77, 279-82, 285-87. With respect to plaintiff’s level of
18
functioning, Dr. Hemenway could not recall his deposition testimony at trial, and it was read into the
19
record:
20
Q:
Do you have any opinion about [plaintiff’s] mental state?
21
A:
Did I have an opinion at the time?
22
Q:
Yes. Let’s go without the time. Let’s stick with 2008 during the times you saw
him in 2008.
A:
I would say he was functioning a little below standard, not intellectually,
intellectually he was fine, but he was having trouble keeping work.
25
Q:
Yes.
26
A:
There had been some problems in his family. I think his sister was molested or
raped in Fallon. That had caused a great deal of stress for him, and he was having
problems prioritizing his life.
23
24
27
28
11
1
Q:
Yes.
2
A:
So, you know, there were stressors on him, and so I would say he was
functioning a little below. I wouldn’t say he was depressed in the sense of
suicidal over those issues, not that I know of, at least. That is, it’s three years ago.
3
4
Tr. 285-87.
5
II.
6
Jack-in-the-Box contends that the Due Process Clause places limits on awards of punitive
7
damages and contends that the $500,000 in punitive damages awarded in this case is excessive in light
8
of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). Three guideposts determine a review of
9
a punitive damages award: (1) the degree of reprehensibility [of the conduct at issue]; (2) the disparity
10
between the harm suffered and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the remedy
11
and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in similar cases. Id. at 574-75.
12
Legal Discussion and Analysis
A.
Reprehensibility
13
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) lists five factors the court
14
should consider in evaluating reprehensibility of a defendant’s conduct. The Supreme Court earlier
15
noted, “Perhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the
16
degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” BMW, 517 U.S. at 575-76. Punitive damages
17
awarded against the defendant should reflect “the enormity of the offense.” Id. The court now considers
18
these five factors.4
19
1.
Was the harm physical as opposed to economic?
20
Plaintiff in this case did not suffer physical harm; rather, he testified that he was angry, sad,
21
disheartened, anxious, and felt powerless. Plaintiff incurred $53.98 in expenses for Xanax and Prozac
22
prescriptions. Although plaintiff did see a therapist, the evidence reveals that plaintiff had several other
23
stressors in his life, including family problems, inability to hold down a job, financial problems, and
24
problems with the criminal justice system. Tr. 274-77, 279-82, 285-87. The emotional distress plaintiff
25
26
4
27
The court notes that in plaintiff’s three and one-half-page opposition, he only discusses
reprehensibility in general terms, leaving the court to piece together, as best it can, plaintiff’s analysis
of this important guidepost.
28
12
1
suffered resulted in de minimus special damages and cannot solely be attributed to the alleged race
2
discrimination during his six-month tenure at Jack-in-the-Box. This factor weighs in favor of defendant.
3
2.
Did the tortious conduct evince a reckless disregard for the
health and safety of others?
4
There is no evidence on the record that weighs in favor of plaintiff with respect to this factor, and
5
plaintiff concedes as much, since he did not address it in his opposition to the motion. As defendant
6
correctly points out, this is a disparate impact case, as opposed to a hostile work environment case, and
7
the discrimination plaintiff testified about consisted primarily of stray remarks with little adverse impact
8
on the terms and conditions of his employment. The evidence reveals that plaintiff did receive training,
9
although it may have been delayed as a result of the impending transfers of both the store manager and
10
area manager to Colorado during the six-month period plaintiff worked at Jack-in-the-Box. There is no
11
evidence of discriminatory termination, as plaintiff abandoned his job because he was arrested and put
12
in jail for a DUI. There is also no evidence this plaintiff’s physical health was adversely affected, apart
13
from some anxiety and stress. Finally, there is no evidence of threats of violence or physical harm. This
14
factor weighs in favor of defendant.
15
3.
Was the plaintiff financially vulnerable?
16
Plaintiff was hired as an assistant manager at the same annual salary he received at Qdoba –
17
$32,000.00. There is no evidence that plaintiff was financially vulnerable, and once again, plaintiff
18
appears to concede this factor because he does not address it. This factor weighs in favor of defendant.
19
4.
20
Did the conduct involve repeated actions, or was it an
isolated incident?
21
Defendant contends that the alleged discrimination plaintiff claimed to have suffered is fairly
22
characterized as isolated, since this is a single-plaintiff case, no other non-Mexican employees have
23
made similar claims of race discrimination, and there is no pattern of such discrimination (#65).
24
Plaintiff asserts that he was not trained in two months even though “Defendant knew its Fallon
25
store was predominately Hispanic,” but nevertheless “put Plaintiff there with promises about becoming
26
a certified, fully trained manager within two months” (#68). Plaintiff also claims that there was “a plan”
27
to keep plaintiff from being promoted, that the store manager and area manager ignored his complaints
28
13
1
or made matters worse, that he was told he would not succeed because he did not speak Spanish and was
2
not Mexican, that management did not investigate his complaints of “differential treatment,” that he did
3
not get to work the day shift, and that Mr. Sayler suggested he move to the Fernley store as a solution
4
to plaintiff’s concerns. Id. Plaintiff further contends that instead of addressing his concerns, defendant
5
“began to build a file on him.” Id. Plaintiff provides no citation to evidence presented at trial for any
6
these assertions. It is for the parties to support argument with facts. Argument and conjecture are not
7
evidence.
8
In reply, defendant addresses each of plaintiff’s contentions. Defendant characterizes plaintiff’s
9
comment that by hiring plaintiff to work at the Fallon store where many employees are Hispanic as
10
somehow reprehensible is not only baseless, but racist. The court agrees. Moreover, plaintiff misstates
11
the testimony of all of the witnesses, including plaintiff, by suggesting that plaintiff was to be trained
12
as a manager, much less in two months. It is undisputed that plaintiff was hired as an assistant store
13
manager, and there is no evidence in the record that defendant told plaintiff he would be fully trained,
14
even as an assistant manager, in two months. In fact, plaintiff did receive training on all of the stations
15
at the restaurant, as well as crew and shift leader training, ServSafe training, team leader training,
16
assistant manager training on food costs, safety and security, equipment, guest services, labor
17
management, cash management, administration, and foresight. Tr. 121, 123, 170, 168-69, 169-71, 121-
18
171-71, 122 .
19
Plaintiff alludes to a “plan to keep Plaintiff from being in competition with Rios, an Hispanic,
20
for the position to which she [was] ultimately promoted” (#68). As defendant points out, the evidence
21
is to the contrary. Mr. Pennington testified that when he learned that Mr. P. Gomez would also be
22
transferred to a store on Colorado, he announced that Ms. Rios would be promoted to store manager
23
when he left. Tr. 387. This was in April 2008, the same time plaintiff came to work for Jack-in-the-Box.
24
Mr. Pennington promoted Ms. Rios because she had worked at the restaurant for several years, and she
25
had strong experience as an assistant manager. Tr. 387, 421, 423.
26
27
28
14
1
Plaintiff next contends that management ignored his complaints or made matters worse after he
2
complained. Defendant cites to the following as evidence of plaintiff’s complaints to management and
3
the response:
4
a.
When plaintiff talked with Mr. Pennington sometime prior to July 2008, plaintiff
complained of unequal treatment, he told Mr. Pennington he needed to speak with him,
and Mr. Pennington responded by suggesting plaintiff “give it a little extra effort” and
“everything will be fine.” Tr. 129.
b.
In July 2008, plaintiff told Mr. Pennington that his training had stopped and he was
worried that once Mr. P. Gomez left, his training would not continue. Tr. 129. Mr.
Pennington told him not to worry and that he would make sure the training was
completed before Mr. P. Gomez left for Colorado. Tr. 129.
c.
Plaintiff once again talked with Mr. Pennington in July 2008 and advised that aside from
training issues, he was not receiving bonuses and was “being treated unequal,” and Mr.
Pennington told him not to worry about it. Tr. 130.
d.
Plaintiff testified that Mr. Pennington did not follow up on his training because he was
preparing to move to Colorado, but Mr. Pennington testified that after he moved to
Colorado, he followed up with Mr. P. Gomez to insure plaintiff’s training was complete
and was told that it was. Tr. 130, 136, 386-87.
e.
The final step for assistant manager training was a training class that was only held once
a quarter so that there were enough people to justify the class. The next assistant
manager training class was schedule in late October or early November 2008, but by that
time, plaintiff stopped coming to work. Tr. 318-19.
f.
Plaintiff visited with Mr. Thompson on September 15, 2008 to discuss his complaints
about stagnant training, bonuses, disrespect, discrimination, and unequal treatment. Tr.
184-85. Mr. Thompson told plaintiff that since he was not the area manager for the
Fallon store, plaintiff should address his concerns to Mr. Sayler. Tr. 187. Mr. Thompson
spoke to Mr. Sayler that same day about plaintiff’s concerns. Tr. 293-94.
g.
After Mr. Thompson spoke to him, Mr. Sayler met with plaintiff at the Fallon store to
discuss his concerns, spoke with him about the coaching document Mr. Sayler had earlier
given him, and they discussed plaintiff’s issues with Ms. Rios and her sisters, who also
worked at the store. Tr. 188, 137, 195-96. They discussed plaintiff’s concerns about
nepotism, and Mr. Sayler suggested that removing one sister would not alleviate
plaintiff’s concerns; therefore, he suggested plaintiff consider moving to the Fernley
Jack-in-the-Box so he could get a fresh start as assistant manager. Tr. 139, 196-97.
Some time after the meeting, plaintiff recalls telling Mr. Sayler that he could not transfer
because he lacked transportation. Tr. 197.
h.
25
At this same meeting, Mr. Sayler discussed plaintiff’s training with him, offered to
review the assistant manager training book with plaintiff, but he did not have it at work.
Tr. Tr. 193.
26
This court has reviewed the trial transcript, and although plaintiff certainly testified about
27
instances of discrimination, he also complained about inadequate training, bonuses, nepotism, and lack
28
15
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
of respect, and working evening shifts. Messrs. Pennington, Thompson, and Sayler responded to his
2
concerns, met with him, counseled him, and repeatedly suggested possible solutions. Even interpretating
3
the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, this factor weighs in favor of defendant.
4
5.
Was the harm the result of intentional malice, trickery,
or deceit, or mere accident?
5
Defendant’s view is that plaintiff’s race discrimination claim is based on the conduct and stray
6
remarks of managers at the Jack-in-the-Box store that plaintiff found offensive, but that his actual
7
dispute centered on failure to train, bonuses, nepotism, and his termination. This conduct does not rise
8
to the level of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit.
9
Plaintiff does not directly address this factor. Instead, he offers unsupported argument and
10
conjecture that defendant hid the truth, built a file and engaged in a cover-up. This factor weighs in
11
favor of defendant.
12
In this case, none of the five aggravating factors associated with reprehensible conduct is present.
13
The economic harm defendant inflicted on plaintiff amounted to $53.98, a nominal amount. There is
14
no evidence of any conduct by defendant that evinced reckless disregard or the health and safety or
15
plaintiff or others. Plaintiff was not financially vulnerable, and the harm was not the result of intentional
16
malice, trickery or deceit. Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as it
17
concerns whether defendant’s conduct involved repeated actions or otherwise, the conduct complained
18
of does not remotely approach reprehensibility. At worst, plaintiff’s managers made isolated comments
19
about race during his six-month tenure at Jack-in-the-Box. When compared to cases in which
20
reprehensibility is found, this case does not come close. See e.g., Bains LLC v. Arco Products Co., 405
21
F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 2005).
22
B.
23
The disparity between the harm or potential harm plaintiff suffered
and the punitive damages award
24
The second BMW guidepost requires the court consider the ratio between the punitive damages
25
and the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff. 517 U.S. at 580. This second guidepost does not turn on
26
“a simple mathematical formula,” and the Supreme Court noted that the analysis must relate back to the
27
threshold “reprehensibility” determination and a “general concern for reasonableness.” 517 U.S. at 581-
28
16
1
82. Higher ratios of punitive-to-compensatory damages may be justified where “a particularly egregious
2
act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages,” or “in cases in which the injury is hard
3
to detect or the nonmonetary value of the noneconomic harm might have been difficult to determine.”
4
Id. at 581. The Court noted that “[w]hen the ratio is a breathtaking 500 to 1 . . . the award must surely
5
‘raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow.’” Id. at 583 (quoting TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources
6
Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 481 (1993) (O’Connor, J. Dissenting).
7
Mendez v. County of San Bernadino, 540 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2008) is particularly instructive on
8
this point. In Mendez, a police officer shot and killed plaintiff’s son, Ignacio, during an armed standoff
9
with police in the driveway of Mendez’s home. Mendez and her other son, Angel, were placed in
10
separate police cars for two hours, then taken to the station for questioning. Mendez did not speak or
11
read English and had little education. Reyes, the police office who translated into Spanish for Mendez,
12
did not tell her she was free to leave, did not tell her that Ignacio had been shot, and she signed a consent
13
form at his direction, written in English, giving the police consent to search her home. Relying on
14
Mendez’s consent form, the police searched her home without a warrant. The jury awarded Mendez $1
15
each in nominal damages for her false arrest and illegal search claims and $250,000 in punitive damages
16
against Reyes for acting in reckless disregard of her constitutional rights. After trial, the district court
17
granted the county’s motion to remit the jury award and reduced the punitive damages award to $5,000,
18
finding the punitive damages award excessive “in light of the nominal compensatory damages awarded.”
19
Id. at 1120.
20
In considering the second BMW guidepost on appeal, the court looked at the ratio “between the
21
punitive damages and the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff.” Id. at 1121, citing BMW, 517 U.S. at
22
580. In Mendez, the ratio of 125,000 to one was deemed “considerably in excess of the single-digit
23
ratios the Court has deemed ‘more likely to comport with due process’ than higher ratios.” Id., see State
24
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003). However, State Farm creates an
25
exception: “ratios greater than those we have previously upheld may comport with due process where
26
a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.” State Farm, 538
27
28
17
1
U.S. at 425 (internal quotations omitted).5 Applying this exception in Mendez, the court concluded that
2
although the second BMW guidepost is not dispositive of the award, “the great disparity between the
3
actual and punitive damages does not cut in Mendez’s favor.” Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1122.
4
The award of punitive damages in this case is $500,000 as compared to the compensatory award
5
of $53.98 – a staggering ratio of 9,262 to 1. This is exponentially higher than the 500 to 1 ratio the
6
Supreme Court characterized as “breathtaking.” 517 U.S. at 583. The question then is whether the
7
conduct of Jack-in-the-Box was so reprehensible to justify the jury’s award. The court concludes it was
8
not. There was no evidence in this case that the defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard, that
9
the conduct evinced reckless disregard of plaintiff’s health or safety, or that plaintiff was financially
10
vulnerable. The conduct alleged involved a single plaintiff over a six-month period of employment
11
during which plaintiff’s primary complaints to management included discrimination, lack of training,
12
lack of respect, and lack of bonuses to which he was not entitled. The evidence simply does not justify
13
the astounding award of $500,000 in punitive damages. This guidepost favors defendant.
14
C.
Comparison between punitive damages award in this case to any
civil or criminal penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases
15
Defendant correctly notes that in a Title VII case, damages – including compensatory and
16
punitive – cannot exceed $300,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)(3)(D). Defendant’s position is that the
17
statutory cap of $300,000 is the amount to be awarded in the most egregious case, and this case does not
18
fit in that category.
19
Plaintiff concedes that the statutory cap warrants a reduction in punitive damages, but argues that
20
the award should be reduced to the outer limits of the statutory cap of $299,946.02 – 5,556 times the
21
compensatory damages award (#68). Plaintiff’s rationale is somewhat opaque, but he appears to argue
22
that Mendez supports an award here of $299,946.02 because the Mendez court “upheld punitive damages
23
award five thousand times the compensatory award . . . and rejected a due process challenge to $5,000
24
25
26
5
27
It is noteworthy that the Mendez court found that the “degree of reprehensibility . . . weigh[ed]
against the jury’s substantial punitive damages award here.” Menez, 540 F.3d at 1121.
28
18
1
in punitive damages awarded despite only $1.00 in nominal damages”(#68). Plaintiff then goes on to
2
revisit the second guidepost to support a reduction in the punitive damages to $299,946.02.
3
Noting that the reduction of punitive damages from $250,000 to $5,000 – a ratio of 2,500 to 1 -
4
was significantly in excess of single digits, the court stated, “Although we agree that the second Gore
5
[BMW] guidepost (the ratio), may have reduced relevance in Section 1983 suits involving only nominal
6
damages, we do not agree with Mendez’s contrary suggestion that this factor has no relevance” Id. at
7
1122 (emphasis in the original). The court acknowledged that while the second BMW guidepost was
8
not dispositive of the punitive damages award, “the great disparity between the actual and punitive
9
damages does not cut in Mendez’s favor.” Id.
10
As in Mendez, the ratio between actual and punitive damages in this case is not dispositive, but
11
it is certainly relevant. The court looks to the primary BMW guidepost – reprehensibility – and
12
concludes that because Jack-in-the-Box’s conduct does not remotely approach level of misconduct
13
warranting an award of $299,946.02, the court instead considers a punitive damages award that is
14
“sufficient to deter the [defendant] from engaging in similar conduct in the future.” 540 F.3d at 1122.
15
III.
16
Considering the BMW guideposts, the court concludes that the jury’s award of $500,000 in
17
punitive damages is unconstitutionally excessive in violation of due process. Therefore, the court grants
18
defendant’s motion to reduce punitive damages award (#65), and reduces the punitive damages award
19
to $5,398.00, which is 100 times the amount of the compensatory damages award. This award is not
20
trivial, but is also not disproportionate to the harm caused. Plaintiff’s request that he be given the option
21
to accept the remittitur of the punitive damages award or request a new trial on this issue is denied. In
22
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 285 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002), the court
23
reduced the punitive damages award and concluded that where “a plaintiff would not be entitled to any
24
greater award on remand,” the plaintiff is not aggrieved. Plaintiff in this case would not be entitled to
25
any greater award than 100 times the amount of compensatory damages; therefore the plaintiff will not
26
be aggrieved.
Conclusion
27
28
19
1
Based upon the foregoing,
2
IT IS ORDERED:
3
1.
Defendant’s motion to reduce punitive damages award (#65) is GRANTED; and
4
2.
The punitive damages award in this matter is reduced to $5,398.00.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: March 8, 2013.
7
8
_________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
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?