Roberts v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 13–CV–6161.,13–CV–6161.
• Citation: 115 F.Supp.3d 344
• Parties: Tameeka ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

115 F.Supp.3d 344

Tameeka ROBERTS, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.

No. 13–CV–6161.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed July 27, 2015.

Alex Umansky, Jessenia Maldonado, Phillips & Associates, PLLC, Casimir Joseph Wolnowski, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Kerrie R. Heslin, Nukk–Freeman & Cerra, P.C., Short Hills, NJ, Melissa Anne Herbert, Rachel Mara Manne, Nukk–Freeman & Cerra, P.C., Chatham, NJ, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & JUDGMENT

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

I.	Introduction	348
II.	Procedural History	349
III.	Facts	349

A.	2007	349
B.	2008	350
C.	2009	350
D.	2010	350
E.	2011	350
F.	2012	350

1.	October 23, 2012: Anonymous Complaint to Corporate Concerns Hotline	351
2.	October 26, 2012: UPS's First Investigation	351
3.	November 15, 2012: Letter to Corporate Headquarters	351
4.	November 26, 2012: Call to UPS Corporate Concerns Hotline	351
5.	November 29, 2012: UPS's Second Investigation	352
6.	December 5, 2012: Alteration of Plaintiff's Time Card	355
7.	Early December 2012: Second Investigation Ends	355
8.	Early December 2012: Complaint to New York State Division of Human Rights	355
9.	December 21, 2012: Plaintiff Hit with Packages During Work	356

IV. Legal Standards for District Courts' Review of Jury's Verdict 357

A.	Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law	357
B.	Motion for a New Trial	357

V. New York City Human Rights Law 358

A.	Context	358
B.	Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation	361

1.	Historical Context	361
2.	Prevalence of Workplace Discrimination in the 21st Century	361
3.	Protections at the Federal Level	362
4.	Protections at the State Level	366
5.	Protections at the Local Level	367
6.	New York City Human Rights Law	368

C.	Law: Direct Liability of Employer	368
D.	Law: Hostile Work Environment	368
E.	Law: Retaliation	368
F.	Guiding Principles for Both Claims	371
G.	Application of Facts to Hostile Work Environment Law	371
H.	Application of Facts to Retaliation Law	372

VI. Remittitur of Compensatory Damages 372

A.	Law	372
B.	Application of Facts to Law	373

VII. Punitive Damages 373

A.	Law	373
B.	Standard of Review for Vacatur of Punitive Damages Awards	374
C.	Application of Facts to Law	374

VIII. Conclusion 374

I. Introduction

As the nation's understanding and acceptance of sexual orientation evolve, so does the law's definition of appropriate behavior in the workplace. A jury, comprised of a cross-section of our heterogeneous community, is best placed to determine what is appropriate at the moment. See Gallagher v. Delaney, 139 F.3d 338, 342 (2d Cir.1998) (addressing appropriateness of jury assessing alleged gender discrimination in the workplace), abrogated in part on other grounds by Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998).

The jury found improper under the law repeated advice from plaintiff's supervisor that her sexual orientation as a lesbian was evil and needed to be changed in accordance with religious dictates.

Appeal to the bible, or theology generally, cannot justify management's condoning the harassing of a lesbian in the workplace. Defendant's central administration failed to protect plaintiff from such abuse.

An award of compensatory and punitive damages was supported by the record.

Plaintiff Tameeka Roberts, a lesbian, sued her employer, defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), for violations of the New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code § 8–502(a) et seq. ("NYCHRL"). She claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her sexual orientation, and that she was retaliated against for complaining about this demeaning treatment. See Compl. ¶ 1, Nov. 5, 2013, ECF No. 1.

A jury found in favor of plaintiff on both counts. Jury Verdict Sheet, June 18, 2015, ECF No. 74. Awarded to plaintiff was $25,000 in compensatory damages on each of her two claims, and an additional $25,000 in punitive damages on each claim. The total judgment was $100,000, plus costs. Id.; Trial Tr. 419:25–423:11, June 18, 2015.

Defendant moves (1) to set aside the jury verdict; (2) for judgment of dismissal or a new trial; or, in the alternative, (3) for reduction of compensatory damages; and (4) striking of punitive damages. All motions are denied.

II. Procedural History

During trial, plaintiff withdrew all claims against her supervisor, Donald Woodard, whom she had sued individually. Trial Tr. 238:8–11, June 17, 2015.

At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) ; Def.'s Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law, June 17, 2015, ECF No. 77; Trial Tr. 327:6–328:4, June 17, 2015. It also moved to dismiss the punitive damages claims. Def.'s Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law 9–11; Trial Tr. 327:9–11, 328:5–13, 330:6–11, June 17, 2015. The motions were denied with leave to renew. Id. at 328:14–329:4.

Following the verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), or, in the alternative, a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). Trial Tr. 424:9–13, June 18, 2015; Def.'s Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative for a New Trial, June 18, 2015, ECF No. 79 ("Def.'s Br."); see also Def.'s Reply Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative for a New Trial or Remittitur, June 24, 2015, ECF No. 78 ("Def.'s Reply"). Remittitur of the compensatory damages award and vacatur of the punitive damages award were sought. Def.'s Br.; Def.'s Reply; Trial Tr. 424:11–13, June 18, 2015. Plaintiff opposed all motions. Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative for a New Trial, June 22, 2015, ECF No. 76 ("Pl.'s Opp'n").

III. Facts

Plaintiff, Tameeka Roberts, a forty-one year-old lesbian, lives with her wife and three sons in New Jersey. Trial Tr. 24:12–16, 34:21, 24:24–25:17, June 15, 2015 (Roberts). She has worked for defendant UPS for approximately twenty years, starting in 1995 as a part-time "unloader" at its Maspeth facility in Queens, New York; in 1999, she switched to a part-time position as a "sorter." Id. at 27:6–10, 28:7–17, 29:1–4, 30:1–11 (Roberts). She was later assigned two new jobs: small package sorter and "operational data capture clerk." The latter position required scanning international package invoices to ensure accuracy. Id. at 30:15–24 (Roberts).

During her career at UPS, plaintiff has had some twenty different supervisors. Id. at 31:20–22 (Roberts). This case centers on one: Donald Woodard, a "full-time area coordinator." He supervised plaintiff from 2007 through 2008, and again from 2010 through 2012. Id. at 32:7–17, 37:25–38:3 (Roberts); Trial Tr. 271:15, June 17, 2015 (Woodard). Woodard made a continuing series of derogatory comments to plaintiff about her sexual orientation. See Trial Tr. 34:10–12, June 15, 2015 (Roberts).

A. 2007

Woodard's criticisms started some time in 2007. Speaking to plaintiff, he denigrated another employee's sexual orientation as a lesbian, which was apparently evident from that employee's tattoo. Id. at 34:16–24 (Roberts). In response, plaintiff complained directly to Woodard about his comment. Id. at 35:2–3 (Roberts). The next day, Woodard brought his bible to work and "showed [plaintiff] ... where [the bible] says that being a lesbian is wrong." Id. at 35:9–13 (Roberts). He told her: "It goes against the bible.... It's a sin." Id. at 35:13–14 (Roberts). Woodard admitted to having made these comments. Trial Tr. 306:12–309:9, June 17, 2015 (Woodard) (some time during 2007 or 2008); but see Riddick Report, Ex. J–7, at UPS 00174–75 (some time in 2011).

In response, plaintiff complained to her shop steward, Vincent Pietraniello, and the head of security, Gary Depotoe. Trial Tr. 35:22–36:1, June 15, 2015 (Roberts) (referring to Pietraniello by nickname "Vinnie P."). During the rest of 2007, Woodard repeatedly told plaintiff that "being a lesbian is wrong" and that she was "going to hell." Id. at 36:18–22 (Roberts).

B. 2008

In 2008, in the presence of one of plaintiff's co-workers, Kenneth Gayden, Woodard told plaintiff: "being a lesbian is a sin." Id. at 36:23–37:4 (Roberts); Trial Tr. 249:10–12, June 17, 2015 (Gayden) (Gayden said "[Woodard] told me that [I] shouldn't hang out with [plaintiff], she's not living right. She had demons. She doesn't know who she is."). Plaintiff responded, "this is not church[,]" and stated: "making comments about me being a lesbian is wrong." Trial Tr. 37:7–11, June 15, 2015 (Roberts). Plaintiff complained to her shop steward, Bill Groll. Id. at 37:12–17 (Roberts).

Throughout 2008, Woodard made additional comments—stating repeatedly that plaintiff's sexual orientation was "wrong," and that she was "going to hell." Id. at 37:18–21 (Roberts). Sometimes, plaintiff would walk away or tell Woodard to "leave me alone." Id. at 37:22–24 (Roberts).

C. 2009

In 2009, for reasons apparently unrelated to plaintiff, Woodard did not work in the Maspeth facility.Id. at 37:25–38:3 (Roberts).

D. 2010

When Woodard returned as plaintiff's supervisor in 2010, his demeaning comments continued. He again "showed [plaintiff] a bible and stated that ... being a lesbian is a sin and it's in the bible." Id. at 38:4–12 (Roberts). In response, plaintiff told him: "This is not ... a church and you don't have a right to do that." Id. at 38:13–16 (Roberts). She complained for a second time to her shop steward, Bill Groll, stating: "[Woodard] again ... showed me the bible and I had complained to [another shop steward Vincent Pietraniello] ... [previously] and [now Woodard is] doing it again." Id. at 38:17–22 (Roberts).

Nothing changed. Woodard told plaintiff that "two women being married is not natural." Id. at 39:22–23 (Roberts). In response she again complained to shop steward Groll. Id. at 40:3–5 (Roberts). Woodard's unwelcome comments continued. He told plaintiff that "being a lesbian is wrong" and that she was "going to hell" and she needed to "change [her] life, the style, the way [she was] liv...