Rodgers v. Fisher Body Div., General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 13 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1022,83-1022
• Parties: 35 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 349, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,514 Sammie J. RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FISHER BODY DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 1102

739 F.2d 1102

35 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 349,

34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,514

Sammie J. RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FISHER BODY DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-1022.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 16, 1983.

Decided July 13, 1984.

Wendell R. Tucker, argued, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

Frances McIntyre-Leonard, argued, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MERRITT and CONTIE, Circuit Judges, and POTTER, District Judge. ^*

JOHN W. POTTER, District Judge.

Defendant Fisher Body Division, General Motors Corporation (General Motors), appeals from a judgment entered in an employment discrimination suit. 575 F.Supp. 12 (W.D.Mich.1982). Suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f) et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff waived his Title VII claims at the close of the case. The plaintiff, Sammie J. Rodgers, a black man, asserted that General Motors intentionally discriminated against him because of his race. The jury awarded plaintiff $300,000 compensatory and $500,000 punitive damages.

In this appeal the Court confronts a record which is in large part free of preserved error. The record reveals, however, that the amount of compensatory damages awarded, when measured against the evidence of plaintiff's harm which was presented at trial, is clearly excessive. The excessiveness of the compensatory award calls into question whether the punitive damages award was properly determined. This is not a case in which an excessive verdict resulted from jury passion and prejudice. Rather, it is a case where the jury, having been provided inadequate guidance, lost its way in its attempt to determine just and reasonable damages awards.

The Court has considered the claims of error raised by the defendant. Because of its concern with the size of the verdict, the Court also, sua sponte, has considered errors which were not preserved at trial and which General Motors has not raised on appeal. The Court finds this to be "one of those uncommon occasions when unpreserved trial court error would result in grave injustice if allowed to stand." Grice v. J. Ray McDermott and Co., Inc., 465 F.2d 486, 488 (5th Cir.1972). Therefore, for the reasons hereinafter stated, the Court will order that the cause be remanded for new trial solely on the issues of compensatory and punitive damages.

The facts out of which this suit arose can be summarized as follows. The plaintiff was hired by defendant as one of several temporary guards at the Lansing Fisher Body plant. When hired, he was told that a permanent plant guard position would soon open and that he would be considered for it if he successfully passed a six month probationary period. He was also told that he would be competing with a white employee for the position. Approximately five months after beginning work, Mr. Rodgers was called to a meeting with the chief of security at the Lansing plant. Also at this meeting were the supervisor of salaried personnel and two sergeants of the Lansing plant security force. At the meeting defendant's agents alleged four incidents of work-related misconduct by plaintiff. Although he offered reasonable explanations for each of the four incidents, Mr. Rodgers was told that he was being laid off. He was also told that Jeffrey Bodary, a white temporary plant guard, had been given the permanent plant guard position for which plaintiff had competed.

Evidence at trial indicated that both plaintiff and Mr. Bodary met and exceeded the rather minimal qualifications for the position. There was also evidence that Mr. Bodary was given more training than plaintiff and that he had been given informal coaching by his superiors.

In this appeal, the defendant presented four issues in its initial appellate brief and five issues in its reply brief. These can be summarized as follows: (1) whether plaintiff established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment under either 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 or Title VII; (2) whether plaintiff's counsel made improper inflammatory remarks during closing arguments; (3) whether the District Court erred in, "instructing the jury that they could decide whether defendant breached the collective bargaining contract where the issue of breach had already been decided adversely to plaintiff in the contract's exclusive grievance procedure"; (4) whether the District Court erred in ruling that an employer may be held vicariously liable for punitive damages of $500,000 for the actions of its relatively low level supervisors; (5) whether the damages awarded are excessive. In its arguments regarding excessive damages, defendant focused upon the lack of significant evidence of mental distress and upon claimed error related to the punitive damages award. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds no merit in defendant's first four claims of error. Regarding the fifth claim, although the Court agrees that damages are excessive, the reasons for the Court's finding of excessiveness are, for the most part, different from those which defendant has asserted.

Defendant, in asserting that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case, stated that plaintiff had not shown systematic discrimination against minorities, an environment of discrimination, or a history of discrimination at the Lansing plant. However, because this is a disparate treatment rather than a disparate impact case, such proof is not required. Plaintiff met his burden of establishing the prima facie case as first articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

The Court, having carefully reviewed the trial transcript, finds that the closing arguments of plaintiff's counsel were not inflammatory. Her comments about the size and wealth of General Motors were made in rebuttal of statements made in closing arguments by General Motors' counsel. Also, these remarks were relevant and proper because plaintiff sought punitive damages.

Regarding the claimed error related to the collective bargaining agreement, it is noted that defendant, not plaintiff, introduced a copy of the agreement into evidence. The district court's instruction as to the agreement was as follows: "If you find that a collective bargaining agreement was violated with respect to length of service, you are instructed that Defendant is liable for such violation but only if you also find that the violation was intentional discrimination against Plaintiff based on his Race."

The Supreme Court has recently held that prior arbitration decisions brought pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement are not to be given preclusive effect in subsequent actions under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. McDonald v. City of West Branch, Michigan, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1799, 80 L.Ed.2d 302 (1984). The rationale for the Supreme Court's ruling applies equally in suits, such as this one, brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981.

The district court restricted consideration by the jury of the alleged violation only if it was, "intentional discrimination against the plaintiff based on his race." Furthermore, the instruction, if erroneous, was harmless error.

Defendant's argument that it is improper to impose punitive damages on General Motors for the misconduct of its relatively low-level supervisory employees is not persuasive. The chief of security at the Lansing plant was acting within the scope of his authority when he laid off plaintiff. The supervisor of salaried personnel was also present at the meeting at which plaintiff was told that he would be laid off. General Motors had authorized the actions of these individuals and is thus liable for their behavior.

The Court now considers the troubling issue of the excessiveness of the verdict. All the federal circuits today agree that there should be appellate supervision of the size of jury verdicts. 6A Moore's Federal Practice p 59.08 (2d ed. 1981). In determining whether a verdict is so excessive that appellate review is proper, the Court must find the verdict to be "shocking" or to manifest "plain injustice." Bauer v. Norris, 713 F.2d 408 (8th Cir.1983); Zarcone v. Perry, 572 F.2d 52 (2nd Cir.1978); Williams v. Steuart Motor Co., 494 F.2d 1074 (D.C.Cir.1974). Before an appellate court reverses on the basis of excessive damages, it must make a detailed appraisal of the evidence bearing on damages. Grunenthal v. Long Island R. Co., 393 U.S. 156, 89 S.Ct. 331, 21 L.Ed.2d 309 (1968).

The Court has made this appraisal, as stated above, and finds both the compensatory and punitive damages awarded in this case to be so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. These awards resulted from several errors which prevented the jury from receiving adequate guidance on the damages issues.

Errors which affected the compensatory damages award include: (1) the failure of either party to request a charge and the failure of the District Court to charge the jury on reduction of future damages to present value; (2) plaintiff's closing argument in which plaintiff's counsel calculated on a blackboard plaintiff's damages for lost wages; (3) the limited evidence of mental distress.

The Court sua sponte raises the first two of these three issues.

It is settled law in this Circuit that an award of future damages must be reduced to present value in order to take into account the earning power of the money. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 241 U.S. 485, 36 S.Ct. 630, 60 L.Ed. 1117 (1916); Petition of United States Steel Corp., 436 F.2d 1256, 1280 (6th Cir.1970), cert. denied sub nom. Lamp v. U.S. Steel Corp., 402 U.S. 987, 91 S.Ct. 1649, 29 L.Ed. 153, rehearing denied 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2227, 29 L.Ed.2d 703 and 403 U.S. 940, 91 S.Ct. 2247, 29 L.Ed.2d 720 (1971), appeal after remand 479 F.2d 489, cert. denied 414 U.S. 859, 94 S.Ct. 71, 38 L.Ed.2d 110 (1973).

The proposed jury instructions of neither defenda...