Aponte–rivera v. Dhl Solutions (usa) Inc.

Decision Date25 May 2011
Docket NumberNo. 10–1655.,10–1655.
Citation650 F.3d 803,94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44178,112 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 590
PartiesJulissa APONTE–RIVERA, Plaintiff, Appellee,v.DHL SOLUTIONS (USA), INC., Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lourdes C. Hernández–Venegas, with whom Mariela Rexach–Rexach, Shiara L. Diloné–Fernández, and Schuster Aguiló LLP were on brief, for appellant.Rubén T. Nigaglioni–Mignucci, Sr., with whom Nigaglioni & Ferraiuoli was on brief, for appellee.Before LIPEZ, SILER,* and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.SILER, Circuit Judge.

Julissa Aponte–Rivera (Aponte) sued her former employer, DHL Solutions, Inc. (DHL), claiming gender-based discrimination and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Puerto Rico law. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Aponte and awarded her emotional distress damages. The district court upheld the jury's verdict, but remitted the damages award. On appeal, DHL disputes the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict, the amount of the remitted damages award, and evidentiary rulings. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.
A. Facts

Aponte began working at DHL in 2000. By 2003, she worked as a logistics operations manager, a role in which she supervised employees, oversaw shipments and documentation, and interacted with DHL's clients.

In 2004, Enrique Frias was named regional manager and became Aponte's supervisor. In the months following his appointment, two major clients of DHL's Puerto Rico operation complained about DHL's performance. Frias and other management investigated the causes of the customer problems and implemented plans to remedy them.

In June 2004, Aponte filed a written complaint with DHL's human resources department. She complained that her supervisor created an “uncomfortable” work environment by giving her an overwhelming workload and making several comments with sexual connotations. Blanca Hernandez, a DHL human resources manager, interviewed Aponte and Frias in response to the complaint. Hernandez told Frias, “don't get personal” and “focus in [sic] the operation and in work.” Shortly after filing this complaint, Aponte took a leave of absence that lasted approximately one month.

A position for program manager became available in November 2004, and Aponte applied for the position. Aponte testified that, during her interview with Frias, he was aggressive and would not allow her to fully answer questions. Rafael Camacho was eventually chosen for the position.

Aponte testified that Camacho, after he began working at DHL, referred to a woman in an authority position as “jefecita” (“little boss”), and stated that women were good for household chores. She also testified that Camacho generally referred to women as “brutas,” or “dumbies.” Aponte worked with Camacho for approximately one month before leaving work for eleven months on a second leave of absence.

Aponte returned to DHL in November 2005 and was assigned to report to Camacho. Frias and Camacho confronted Aponte, asking her why she returned instead of resigning. They also said the person who ran the operation “had to have balls.” Aponte also reported that Frias told her the logistics operation in Puerto Rico had its best year in 2005 because it was being run by a man. Joyce Mercado, a co-employee, testified that she overheard this exchange and it was “shameful,” and the two men spoke to Aponte in very loud tones. She said that Frias and Camacho generally spoke to male employees “appropriately,” and would “treat them okay,” which was different from how they treated female employees.

Over the next few months, Camacho gave Aponte a verbal warning and a written warning regarding her performance at work. In March 2006, Aponte again complained to human resources, stating she felt “discriminated based on gender, overwhelmed, distressed and pressured labor wise.” Maude Cesari, a DHL human resources employee, went to the office later that month to resolve the complaint. Shortly after their meeting, Aponte thanked Cesari and said she had noticed a positive change.

However, Aponte took another leave of absence a month later, and ultimately resigned from DHL on June 17. Her resignation letter stated that her resignation was involuntary but necessary due to the gender discrimination she suffered at work that left her “in an emotional deterioration.”

B. Procedural History

Aponte brought a hostile work environment and gender discrimination claim against DHL, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. During trial, DHL moved for judgment as a matter of law, which was granted for some claims but denied for the gender-based hostile work environment claim. After a four-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Aponte and awarded her $350,000 in emotional distress damages.1

DHL renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and asked the district court to set aside the verdict. It also requested, in the alternative, that a new trial or remittitur be granted. The district court found there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in Aponte's favor, and a new trial was not warranted. However, the court determined that [w]hile the evidence produced at trial regarding Defendant's liability for a hostile work environment was sufficient, similar evidence is lacking to support the damages awarded.” After reviewing the evidence and comparing awards from similar cases, the court remitted the award from $350,000 to $200,000.2

On appeal, DHL maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support Aponte's hostile work environment claim, and alternatively, that the award should be further remitted. DHL also argues that the district court made evidentiary errors that require a new trial.

II.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidencei. Standard of Review

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, a jury's verdict “must be upheld unless the facts and inferences, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the movant that a reasonable jury could not have returned the verdict.” Astro–Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our analysis “is weighted toward preservation of the jury verdict.” Rodriguez–Torres v. Caribbean Forms Mfr., Inc., 399 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir.2005).

ii. Analysis

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). The plaintiff must establish that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based upon gender; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it altered the conditions of her employment and created an abusive working environment; (5) the offending conduct was both objectively and subjectively offensive; and (6) some basis for employer liability has been established. Douglas v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 474 F.3d 10, 15 (1st Cir.2007).

“When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). This standard “takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury.” Id. The conduct must create an objectively hostile work environment, as well as the plaintiff's subjective perception that the environment is abusive. Id. at 21–22, 114 S.Ct. 367.

This is not a “mathematically precise test,” and whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” is determined by looking at all the circumstances. Id. at 22–23, 114 S.Ct. 367. Relevant factors may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating as opposed to a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Id. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367. While psychological harm may be taken into account, no single factor is required. Id.

DHL argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that any harassment Aponte experienced was severe and pervasive. DHL further contends that Aponte fails to show she was treated differently because of her gender, and maintains that many of the comments made to Aponte could be interpreted in a way that does not refer to women. It argues that “rudeness or ostracism, standing alone, usually is not enough to support a hostile work environment claim.” See Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76, 92 (1st Cir.2005).

Aponte testified that Frias and Camacho made several gender-based comments to her, including: “that what he had been taught was that women were supposed to do [ ] household chores”; “the person who ran this operation had to have balls to run the operation”; referring to a female executive as “jefecita,” or “little boss”; stating that the operation had to be run by a man; generally referring to women as “brutas,” or “dumbies”; and asking her if she was a “pendeja,” a pejorative term used to refer to women. She also maintained that Frias and Camacho “didn't have any willingness” to train her on certain tasks. She testified that she took a leave of absence because of the emotional hardship she experienced.

Aponte filed two internal complaints with DHL Human Resources. In the second complaint, she wrote that “the work environment has become completely hostile and without respect to my person, I feel discriminated based on gender, overwhelmed, distressed and pressured labor wise.” She felt “completely...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Passananti v. Cook Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 20, 2012
    ...and was repeatedly referred to as a “little girl” while her ability to perform surgery was questioned); Aponte–Rivera v. DHL Solutions, (USA) Inc., 650 F.3d 803, 809 (1st Cir.2011) (upholding jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on hostile work environment claim based on evidence that supervi......
  • Gardner v. Simpson Fin. Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • August 9, 2013
    ...from $150,000 to $37,500). Furthermore, “[a]wards in comparable cases are instructive.” Aponte–Rivera v. DHL Solutions (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803, 811 (1st Cir.2011). Courts have ordered remittiturs in a number of cases where emotional distress damages were awarded. Other than Sanchez, defen......
  • Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 2, 2021
    ...standards and with the witnesses' demeanor at the trial,’ " we afford its decision " ‘broad discretion." Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Sols. (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803, 810 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rodríguez-García v. Miranda-Marín, 610 F.3d 756, 773 (1st Cir. 2010) ). "Where the trial court already ......
  • Trainor v. HEI Hospitality, LLC
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 31, 2012
    ...v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 579 (1st Cir.1989), “[a]wards in comparable cases are instructive,” Aponte–Rivera v. DHL Solutions (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803, 811 (1st Cir.2011). A review of cases with comparable facts corroborates our conclusion that $500,000 is grossly excessive here. See, e.g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Appeals
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases Trial and post-trial proceedings
    • May 6, 2022
    ...Whole Foods, Marketing Group, Inc. , 952 F.3d 293, 301 (D.D.C. 2020). • Evidentiary Rulings — Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Solutions (USA), Inc. , 650 F.3d 803, 812 (1 st Cir. 2011); Witkowski v. International Broth. of Boilermakers , 413 Fed.Appx. 364, 365 (2 nd Cir. 2011); 404 Fed.Appx. 674, 677 ......
  • § 21.04 Lack of Memory Requirement
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (2018) Title Chapter 21 Refreshing Recollection
    • Invalid date
    ...regarding the manner in which Rush fell from the CN-IC train.") (citation omitted).[10] Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Solutions (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803, 812 (1st Cir....
  • § 21.04 LACK OF MEMORY REQUIREMENT
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (CAP) Title Chapter 21 Refreshing Recollection
    • Invalid date
    ...regarding the manner in which Rush fell from the CN-IC train.") (citation omitted).[11] Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Solutions (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803, 812 (1st Cir. 2011). ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT