Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 263

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 246 Motion to Enter Judgment on the Verdict, denying 240 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, denying 243 Motion to Enter Judgment on the Verdict or for a New Trial. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 10/24/2023) (axm)

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 1 of 18 PageID 9831

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SARAH LINDSLEY,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
TRT HOLDINGS, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2942-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are three motions: Defendants’ Renewed Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law, (Doc. 240), Defendants’ Motion to Enter Judgment on
the Verdict or for a New Trial, (Doc. 243), and Lindsley’s Motion to Enter Judgment
on the Verdict, (Doc. 246). After reviewing the motions, responses, replies, and
applicable law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Lindsley’s
Motion to Enter Judgment on the Verdict, (Doc. 246), DENIES Defendants’ Renewed
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (Doc. 240), and DENIES Defendants’
Motion to Enter Judgment on the Verdict or for a New Trial. (Doc. 243).
I. Background
Lindsley worked for Omni for about sixteen years, starting as a part-time
server. But in 2010, Omni offered Lindsley a position as Assistant Director of Food
and Beverage at Omni’s Corpus Christi hotel. At the time Lindsley took the job, her
salary was $57,000 per year. In July 2011, Omni promoted Lindsley to the position
of Director of Food and Beverage at Omni’s Corpus Christi hotel with a salary of
1

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 2 of 18 PageID 9832

$70,841—significantly less than the starting salaries of her male predecessors in that
position.
But Lindsley proved to be a successful Director of Food and Beverage, so Omni
continually gave her significant raises that elevated her pay above that of her male
comparators. It’s undisputed that, by March 2013, Lindsley’s pay had surpassed that
of one of her comparators, and by September 2014, Lindsley’s salary had surpassed
that of all of her comparators.
In 2015, Lindsley applied for the Director of Food and Beverage position at
Omni’s Houston hotel. 1 When the interview process went south, Lindsley withdrew
her application for that position and filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on September 23, 2015, for, among
other things, failure to promote and pay discrimination.
This Court previously dismissed Lindsley’s pay-discrimination and failure-topromote claims. 2 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court’s dismissal of
Lindsley’s failure-to-promote claim but reversed the Court’s dismissal of her paydiscrimination claim. 3
After trial, the jury first issued a verdict stating that Omni did not discriminate
against Lindsley on the basis of her sex, awarded her $0 in backpay, but awarded
$100,000 for pain and suffering and $25 million in punitive damages.

1

Doc. 121 at 2.

2

The Court also dismissed a retaliation claim that isn’t relevant to the instant judgment.

3

See Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, Inc., 984 F.3d 460, 471 (5th Cir. 2021).

2

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 3 of 18 PageID 9833

The Court became concerned about “potential inconsistencies” in that verdict. 4
In particular, Omni’s counsel had earlier raised a concern that the Court’s question
about Title VII liability drawn straight from the Fifth Circuit pattern instruction
used “a double negative.” 5 So it was possible that the double negative confused the
jury, when the jury really had meant to find Omni liable. Further, the jury had raised
a question about conditioning language that the Court had used for a separate claim;
but the Court hadn’t used conditioning language for the Title VII questions. As a
result, the Court resubmitted the case to the jury with conditioning language that
specified that, if the jury found no liability, they should answer no further questions
about Title VII. 6
The jury’s second verdict found that Omni had discriminated against Lindsley
on the basis of her sex, and then still awarded Lindsley $0 in backpay damages,
$100,000 for pain and suffering, and $25 million in punitive damages.
II.
A.

Legal Standard
Inconsistent Verdict

When a jury returns a potentially inconsistent verdict, a district court may
(1) reconcile the verdict and enter judgment or (2) grant a new trial. There’s a “strong
presumption in favor of reconciling the jury’s verdict,” 7 and the court must “reconcile

4

Tr. Trans. at 1041:15–16.

5

Tr. Trans. at 891:25.

6

Doc. 232 at 1 (“If you answer no, then answer question 5.”).

7

Goff v. Pert, 741 F. App’x 211, 213 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).

3

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 4 of 18 PageID 9834

or harmonize the answers with each other, if that can reasonably be done.” 8 In other
words, if “the jury’s answers . . . may fairly be said to represent a logical and probable
decision on the relevant issues as submitted,” the Court must enter judgment in
accord with that decision. 9 A court should instead grant a new trial only if “there is
no view of the case which makes the jury’s answers consistent.” 10
B. Judgment as a Matter of Law
Judgment as a matter of law is proper only when “a reasonable jury would not
have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” 11 “This
will only occur if the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the
movant’s favor that jurors could not reasonably have reached a contrary verdict.” 12
In evaluating a motion for judgment as a matter of law, “the court must consider all
of the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, drawing all factual
inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and leaving credibility determinations,

8

McVey v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 288 F.2d 53, 59 (5th Cir. 1961).

9

Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911, 915 (5th Cir. 1973).

10

Id.

Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, 708 F.3d 614, 620 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting FED. R. CIV.
P. 50(a) (cleaned up)).
11

12

Id.

4

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 5 of 18 PageID 9835

the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts to
the jury.” 13 “After a jury trial, the standard of review is especially deferential.” 14
III.

Analysis

Together, the parties have filed three post-trial motions which this Court must
now resolve. For organizational purposes, the Court will first address the jury’s first
verdict, then Omni’s motion for new trial, then the jury’s second verdict, and will
finish the opinion by explaining a few details related to the Court’s judgment.
A. The Jury’s First Verdict
The parties dispute the legal consequence of the jury’s first verdict. 15
Defendants argue that that they are entitled to a take-nothing judgment on the first
verdict. They reason that the jury “established Defendants to be the prevailing
parties on all causes of action” because the jury found that Defendants were not liable
and awarded $0 in backpay damages. 16 Lindsley counters that the jury’s finding of
no liability combined with a monetary judgment of $25.1 million in favor of Lindsley
is an inconsistent verdict. 17 The Court agreed with Lindsley at trial and continues to
do so now.
Here, despite Defendants’ contention otherwise, 18 the jury’s first verdict was
inconsistent. After deliberation, the jury first found no liability (i.e., that Omni did
13

Price v. Marathon Cheese Corp., 119 F.3d 330, 333 (5th Cir. 1997).

14

Abraham, 708 F.3d at 620 (cleaned up).

15

See generally Docs. 244, 249.

16

Doc. 244 at 18–22.

17

Doc. 249 at 2–4.

Defendants’ statement that “The First Verdict Was Not Inconsistent” is peculiar.
Defendants recognize that the jury’s first verdict is inconsistent because they ask the Court to
18

5

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 6 of 18 PageID 9836

not discriminate against Lindsley on the basis of sex), but the jury did award
compensatory damages—$100,000 in pain-and-suffering—and $25 million in
punitive damages. The notion that Defendants did nothing wrong but owe Lindsley
$25.1 million is inconsistent.
B. A New Trial?
As a result of the jury’s inconsistent first verdict, the Court re-instructed and
re-submitted the questions to the jury for a second verdict. Defendants argue that
the Court should grant a new trial. 19 In response, Lindsley argues that Fifth Circuit
case law supports the Court’s decision to re-instruct and re-submit the inconsistent
first verdict to the jury. 20 The Court agrees with Lindsley.
“A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district court finds the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial
was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course.” 21 A court may also
grant a motion for new trial when there is “uncertainty or contingency to the finality
of the jury’s determination.” 22

invalidate the jury’s damages award in the first verdict. Doc. 244 at 18–22. So Defendants’ request
that this Court strike $25.1 million in damages on a “consistent” verdict makes their own request
“legally inconsistent.”
The verdict in this case was a general verdict. The defendants have likely waived any
argument that re-submission of the verdict to the jury was improper because, in the Fifth Circuit, a
party waives its objection to a court’s re-submission of a general jury verdict once the jury is dismissed.
Montano v. Orange Cnty., Tex., 842 F.3d 865, 881–82 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Motis Energy, LLC v.
SWN Prod. Co., No. 4:17-CV-00962, 2019 WL 2909722, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2019).
19

20

Doc. 249 at 2–4.

21

Beckham v. La. Dock Co., 124 F. App’x 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (cleaned up).

22

Cook v. United States, 379 F.2d 966, 970 (5th Cir. 1967).

6

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 7 of 18 PageID 9837

Here, the Court’s resubmission of the first verdict to the jury was proper. For
reasons stated previously, the Court was concerned about “potential inconsistencies”
in that verdict because of Omni’s concern with the double-negative wording in the
pattern instruction and the lack of conditioning language. 23 So the Court added
conditioning language and resubmitted the case to the jury. 24 The language specified
that, if the jury found no liability, they should answer no further questions about
Title VII. 25 And upon further deliberation, the jury did find Title VII liability and
kept the compensatory and punitive damages awards the same.
The defendants cite a purportedly analogous case from the Fourth Circuit,
McCollum v. Stahl. 26 At base, McCollum stands for the legal proposition that a
resubmission of an inconsistent special verdict to a jury is “procedurally
impermissible.” 27 But McCollum was about special verdicts. By contrast, this case
featured a general verdict. And this distinction makes all of the difference because
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly allow resubmission of special
verdicts. 28 But the Rules expressly allow resubmission of general verdicts if there is

23

Tr. Trans. at 891:25; Tr. Trans. at 1041:15–16.

24

Tr. Trans. at 1041:15–16.

25

Doc. 232 at 1 (“If you answer no, then answer question 5.”).

26

579 F.2d 869 (4th Cir. 1978).

27

McCollum, 579 F.2d at 871.

28

See FED. R. CIV. P. 49(a).

7

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 8 of 18 PageID 9838

an inconsistency. 29 And Fifth Circuit case law allows district courts to resubmit an
inconsistent verdict to a jury. 30
C. The Jury’s Second Verdict
The second verdict found that Lindsley had proven her Title VII paydiscrimination claim, awarded Lindsley $0 in backpay damages, $100,000 in painand-suffering damages, and $25 million in punitive damages.
The parties dispute the legal consequence of the jury’s second verdict. 31
Defendants argue that they are entitled to a take-nothing judgment because the jury
awarded $0 in backpay to Lindsley, and thus Lindsley cannot satisfy the paydiscrimination elements of her prima facie case. 32 Lindsley counters that a finding
of backpay damages is not necessary for liability because the prima facie elements of
a pay-discrimination claim fall away at trial. 33 Moreover, Lindsley cites to Fifth
Circuit case law affirming a jury’s Title VII verdict awarding nominal and punitive
damages without compensatory damages. 34 The Court agrees with Lindsley.
As an initial matter, while the jury’s verdict is admittedly odd, this isn’t the
first time a jury in this Circuit has found Title VII liability without a finding of
backpay—it’s happened at least twice before. In Abner, the jury awarded $0 in

29

See id. 49(b)(3), (4).

30

See, e.g., Richard v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 853 F.2d 1258, 1259–60 (5th Cir. 1988).

31

See generally Docs. 246, 247.

32

Doc. 247 at 2–5.

33

Doc. 249 at 10–11.

34

Doc. 246 at 7 n.3.

8

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 9 of 18 PageID 9839

compensatory damages and $125,000 in punitive damages. 35 In Lewis, the jury
awarded $0 in compensatory damages and $6,279 in punitive damages. 36 The Fifth
Circuit affirmed both of those awards—that is, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the notion
that Title VII liability need not be accompanied by an award of compensatory
damages. 37 That forecloses the defendants’ logic-based arguments.
Nevertheless, the defendants argue that these Fifth Circuit cases are in other
Title VII contexts and that they should win as a matter of law on no unequal pay. 38
This argument fails.
The defendants’ attempt to cabin Abner is unavailing because Abner expressly
discussed Title VII cases, not just hostile-work-environment claims. True, Abner
involved a hostile-work-environment claim. 39 But three things are worth noting in
Abner’s analysis. First, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a jury’s Title VII verdict awarding
punitive damages without compensatory damages. By itself, that judgment convinces
this Court that the jury’s second verdict—which, unlike Abner, does award
compensatory damages—is not an inconsistent one.

Second, the Fifth Circuit

expressly stated that its holding applied to more than just hostile-work-environment
claims: “[A] punitive damages award under Title VII and § 1981 need not be

35

Abner v. Kansas City Southern R.R. Co., 513 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 2008).

36

Lewis v. Parish of Terrebonne, 894 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1990).

37 The Fifth Circuit has likewise stated that, “[f]or Title VII cases not involving backpay,
frontpay, or compensatory damages, our district courts have upheld lone punitive damages awards,
accompanied by court-assigned nominal damages of $1.” Abner, 513 F.3d at 159. With that being said,
a district court need not award a “ceremonial anchor of nominal damages to tie to a punitive damages
award.” Id. at 165.
38

Doc. 247 at 2–5.

39

Abner, 513 at 156.

9

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

accompanied by compensatory damages.” 40

Page 10 of 18 PageID 9840

Third, the Fifth Circuit’s textual

analysis—which is rooted in a harm-based analysis—reached all of Title VII and not
just hostile-work environment claims. 41 Most notably, the Fifth Circuit observed that
Title VII’s “statutory maxima capping punitive damage awards strongly undermine
the concerns that underlie the reluctance to award punitive damages without proof
of actual harm.” 42 And still in support of its textual analysis, the Fifth Circuit also
noted that the purpose of Title VII’s 1991 amendments was to provide additional
damages remedies because injuries from Title VII discrimination are “often difficult
to quantify in physical terms; preventing juries from awarding punitive damages
when an employer engaged in reprehensible discrimination without inflicting easily
quantifiable physical and monetary harm would quell the deterrence that Congress
intended in the most egregious discrimination cases under Title VII.” 43 Translation?
In this Circuit, Title VII liability need not be accompanied by an award of
compensatory damages because a plaintiff need not provide “proof of actual harm.”
This case is even clearer.

Again, in Abner, the Fifth Circuit held that

compensatory damages, i.e., a showing of harm, need not be a prerequisite for Title
VII liability. By contrast, here, the jury did find that Lindsley was harmed—twice

40

Id. at 160.

41

Id. at 160–63.

42

Id. at 159 (cleaned up).

43 Id. at 163. Abner’s understanding of punitive damages without a finding of backpay or
compensatory damages also comports with the Supreme Court’s reading that Title VII’s scope “is not
limited to economic or tangible discrimination” because “it covers more than ‘terms’ and ‘conditions’ in
the narrow contractual sense.” National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115 (2002)
(first quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); then quoting Faragher v. Boca Raton,
524 U.S. 775, 786 (1998)).

10

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 11 of 18 PageID 9841

actually, as shown by the jury’s twice-awarded award $100,000 in compensatory
damages. Thus, because Fifth Circuit case law instructs that a plaintiff can recover
punitive damages “without proof of actual harm,” subject to Title VII’s caps on
damages, the jury’s second verdict, finding liability and harm, is a consistent one.
D. The Second Verdict & Judgment as a Matter of Law
The Court must next determine if there was sufficient evidence to uphold the
jury’s verdict. In moving for judgment as a matter of law, the defendants attempt to
cast into doubt the jury’s liability finding by turning the jury’s general verdict into a
special verdict through a multi-step process. 44 First, the defendants argue that
Lindsley’s prima facie elements apply post-trial, specifically at the judgment-as-amatter-of-law stage. 45 Second, they argue that this Court should take the jury’s
backpay allotment of damages as a factual finding on liability. 46 And third, they
argue, after taking the jury’s finding on damages and applying it to an element of
liability, Lindsley cannot prove discrimination. 47 All of this is an attempt to make an
end-run around Abner. The Court won’t do that.
The defendants’ multi-step argument fails on multiple grounds. First, this
case is at the judgment-as-a-matter-of-law stage. “At this stage, the McDonnellBurdine presumption drops from the case, and the factual inquiry proceeds to a new

44

Doc. 241 at 13–15.

45

Id. at 13.

46

Id. at 13–15.

47

Id. at 14–15.

11

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

level of specificity.” 48

Page 12 of 18 PageID 9842

“The ‘factual inquiry’ in a Title VII case is ‘whether the

defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.’” 49 “In other words, is the
employer treating some people less favorably than others because of their race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.” 50
Here, the jury said yes to liability, and there is evidentiary support for that
finding on the Court’s review of the record. At base, what the defendants complain
of is the lack of a dollar award for unequal pay. But as Abner instructs, harm in the
Title VII context is not only difficult to quantify, but a finding of harm is not needed
for Title VII liability. 51 And the Court is not going to toss out this jury’s verdict, which
found liability, harm (compensatory damages), and damages on the defendants’
argument that a showing of a specific type of harm, i.e., backpay damages, are needed
for Title VII liability.
E. Details Related to Lindsley’s Damages Award
Now that the Court has affirmed the jury’s second verdict, it can handle a few
details relating to its final judgment: Title VII’s punitive-damages cap, pre-and postinterest damages, Lindsley’s state-law claim, enterprise liability, and injunctive
relief.

U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715 (1983) (unanimous opinion)
(quoting Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 n.10 (cleaned up)).
48

49

Id. (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253).

50

Id. (quoting Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1978) (cleaned up)).

51 Abner, 513 F.3d at 163. Again, the Fifth Circuit’s holding that Title VII harm can be difficult
to quantify reflects the Supreme Court’s instruction that Title VII’s scope “is not limited to economic
or tangible discrimination” because “it covers more than ‘terms’ and ‘conditions’ in the narrow
contractual sense.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. at 115.

12

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 13 of 18 PageID 9843

a. Title VII’s Punitive-Damages Cap
First, while the jury awarded Lindsley $100,000 in pain-and-suffering
damages and $25 million in punitive damages, the Court cannot lawfully enter
judgment for $25.1 million. By statute, Title VII limits a plaintiff’s recovery to
between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on the size of the defendant-employer. 52
Here, Omni is a large enough employer to trigger the statutory maximum limitation
of $300,000. So Lindsley is entitled to $300,000 in damages from Omni.
b. Integrated Employer Liability
Second, the parties dispute whether TRT can be liable against Lindsley as an
integrated employer with Omni. 53 In its motion for entry of judgment on the (second)
verdict, Lindsley argues that TRT is also liable as an integrated employer because
Omni and TRT were represented by the same attorneys and executives of each
company share offices. 54 By contrast, TRT argues that no evidence presented at trial
supports a finding that TRT and Omni are integrated employers. 55 The Court agrees
with TRT.
The Fifth Circuit applies a four-factor test to determine whether two entities
are an integrated employer for purposes of Title VII liability: “(1) interrelation of
operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and

42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(A)–(D); see also Scudiero v. Radio One of Tex. II, LLC, No. 4:12-CV1088, 2015 WL 6859146, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2015) (interpreting Title VII’s damages cap
similarly).
52

53

See generally Docs. 241, 244, 246, 266.

54

Doc. 246 at 14; Doc. 249 at 17–18.

55

Doc. 241 at 25–28; Doc 266 at 9.

13

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 14 of 18 PageID 9844

(4) common ownership or financial control.” 56 While no single factor is dispositive,
the second factor is “the most important one.” 57 And the first factor (operations) looks
at matters like production, shared labor, financial accounts, bookkeeping, paychecks,
and tax returns preparation. 58
At trial, the only facts about TRT came from Omni’s CEO, 59 who testified that
Omni and TRT shared office space, but he also testified that he lacked knowledge
surrounding the corporate structure between TRT and Omni. The only positive fact
(shared office space) at best goes to the factor on interrelated operations. But shared
office space is a non-existent evidentiary point to prove the interrelated-operations
factor. The Fifth Circuit, on the interrelation-of-operations factor, cares about things
like shared employees, bank accounts, and books—not shared office space. 60
Similarly, Lindsley’s argument that Omni and TRT used the same lawyers holds no
weight in the integrated-employer factor. Overall, there is no evidence that TRT and
Omni had interrelated operations, centralized labor relations, common management,
and common ownership or control. That lack of evidence precludes the Court from
holding TRT liable as an integrated employer.
c. Lindsley’s State-Law Claim

56

Perry v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.L.C., 990 F.3d 918, 927 (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).

57

Id. (cleaned up).

58

Id.

59

App. 71–76, 77–78, 81–82.

60

Perry, 990 F.3d at 927.

14

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 15 of 18 PageID 9845

Third, Lindsley seeks entry of judgment on her state-law claim. 61 Lindsley’s
amended complaint includes a claim under Texas’s parallel statute to Title VII,
Section 21.001 of the Texas Labor Code (the Texas Commission on Human Rights
Act). 62 Yet Lindsley never proposed state law instructions and questions for the jury
on this state-law claim, and never objected to the lack of such instructions and
questions at the charge conference. 63

Lindsley’s failure to submit state law

instructions and questions or to object to the lack of them waives her state-law claim
thereby precluding recovery under this claim.
d. Injunctive Relief
Fourth, Lindsley asks the Court to (1) enjoin the defendants from engaging in
unlawful employment practices and (2) to order the defendants to carry out policies
that provide equal pay to female employees, which includes posting the jury’s verdict
for a limited time at all Omni hotel properties and mailing physical copies of the
EEOC determination, lawsuit, and jury verdict to Omni’s employees. 64 In response,
the defendants largely argue that Lindsley is not entitled to injunctive relief because
the Court cannot enter judgment in favor of Lindsley on the jury’s second verdict. 65
The Court will oblige one of Lindsley’s requests.

61

See generally Doc. 246.

62

Doc. 17 at 40 (am. compl.).

63 See Doc. 232 (jury questions); see Miles-Hickman v. David Powers Homes, Inc., 613 F. Supp.
2d 872 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (Doc. 144) (Jury verdict question contains separate state-law questions when
plaintiff originally pled separate state and federal claims).
64

Doc. 246 at 14–15.

65

Doc. 247 at 8–10.

15

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 16 of 18 PageID 9846

“[I]n the wake of a Title VII violation,” it is well established that “injunctive
relief is mandatory . . . absent clear and convincing proof of no reasonable probability
of further noncompliance with the law.” 66 Although the general rule is that “the
moving party must satisfy the court that relief is needed,” 67 that rule flips in the Title
VII context: “The burden of negating that probability [of further noncompliance] lies
with the defendants.” 68 As it pertains to available remedies, Title VII’s text gives
courts great discretion to award equitable relief including “reinstatement,” “hiring,”
“back pay,” or any other “equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” 69
Here, Omni has not satisfied its burden in proving that injunctive relief is not
warranted to prevent future harm to employees. Omni largely argues that, because
the jury’s second verdict should be vacated, injunctive relief is not necessary. 70
Because the Court finds that the jury’s second verdict should not be vacated, Omni’s
argument largely—if not entirely—falls apart. Therefore, of Lindsley’s requested
injunctive relief, the Court deems it appropriate for Omni to post the jury’s second
verdict on the company’s bulletin boards in employee break areas with the following
notice: “A jury in Dallas, Texas, found that Omni unlawfully discriminated against
employee Sarah Lindsley under Title VII because of her sex.” And Omni must

E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 731 F.3d 444, 469–70 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (cleaned
up); accord James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 559 F.2d 310, 354–55 (5th Cir. 1977).
66

67

United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953).

68

E.E.O.C. v. Rogers Bros., Inc., 470 F.2d 965, 967 (5th Cir. 1972).

69

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1) (emphasis added).

70

Doc. 247 at 8–10.

16

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 17 of 18 PageID 9847

distribute the notice and second verdict to employees electronically. 71 Omni must
advise the Court within 45 days of its compliance with this notice requirement. 72
e. Pre- and Post-Interest Damages
Fifth, Lindsley requests pre- and post-interest damages. 73 The Court denies
some of those requests. As stated, Title VII caps a claimant’s compensatory and
punitive damages award to $300,000. This cap includes prejudgment interest. 74 But
Lindsley is entitled to post-judgment interest on this award. 75 By statute, postjudgment interest is “calculated from the date of the entry of judgment, at a rate
equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published
by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week
preceding the date of judgment.” 76

Here, the weekly average 1-year constant

Lindsley requested a hard copy be mailed to employees. While that’s good for business at
the United States Postal Service, the Court sees limited value in sending hard copies as opposed to
electronic means.
71

72 Lindsley also asks for injunctive relief to (1) enjoin the defendants from engaging in unlawful
employment practices, and (2) order the defendants to carry out policies that provide equal pay to
female employees. The first request is so broad is far exceeds the scope of this case. The second remedy
is unfit for this case. Lindsley has not applied for reinstatement with Omni. In fact, she voluntarily
left her position. Nor did Lindsley bring a class action. Thus, ordering Omni to carry out policies that
provide equal pay to female employees would solely benefit those not a part of this lawsuit. And while
“[i]njunctive relief which benefits non-parties may sometimes be proper” in instances where it is
“designed to assist a party” and will also “accidentally assist person not before the court,” Meyer v.
Brown & Root Constr. Co., 661 F.2d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added), this is not one of those
times because ordering Omni to promulgate certain policies would benefit only persons not before this
Court. By contrast, while the aforementioned published notice does incidentally inform current Omni
employees (non-parties) of Omni’s unlawful discrimination in this case, it redresses any reputational
harm Lindsley may have suffered during and after her tenure at Omni.
73

Doc. 246 at 11–13.

74 Johnson v. Sw. Rsch. Inst., 384 F. Supp. 3d 722, 727 (W.D. Tex. 2019) (declining to award
pre-judgment interest once claimant’s Title VII award hit the statutory limit).
75

Id.

76

Id.

17

Case 3:17-cv-02942-X Document 263 Filed 10/24/23

Page 18 of 18 PageID 9848

maturity Treasury yield is 5.45%. 77 Thus, Lindsley will be awarded post-judgment
interest at 5.45% from the date of this judgment until paid.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART Lindsley’s Motion to Enter Judgment on the Verdict, (Doc. 246), DENIES
Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (Doc. 240), and
DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Enter Judgment on the Verdict or for a New Trial.
(Doc. 243).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2023.

___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

77
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, Selected Interest
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/ (last accessed Oct. 24, 2023).

18

Rates

(Daily),