Briggs v. Temple Univ.

• Decision Date: 16 October 2018
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 16-248
• Parties: Ruth BRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

339 F.Supp.3d 466

Ruth BRIGGS, Plaintiff,

v.TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION No. 16-248

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed October 16, 2018

Laura Carlin Mattiacci, Rahul Munshi, Console Mattiacci Law, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Richard R. Harris, Jonathan L. Shaw, Rachel Fendell Satinsky, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT F. KELLY, Sr. J.

Plaintiff Ruth Briggs ("Briggs") filed suit in this Court against her former employer, Defendant Temple University ("Temple"), on January 20, 2016. Briggs alleged Temple discriminated against her because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951 et seq. , and because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the PHRA. (See generally Compl.) Additionally, Briggs claimed that Temple subjected her to a hostile work environment and retaliated against her for complaining of age and gender discrimination in the workplace. (See id. )

The case was tried before a jury for four days, from July 16, 2018, through July 19, 2018. The jury returned a verdict in Briggs' favor on five claims: (1) age discrimination in connection with the termination of employment; (2) retaliation in the form of termination for complaining of age discrimination; (3) age-based hostile work environment; (4) retaliatory hostile work environment for complaining of age discrimination; and (5) retaliatory hostile work environment for complaining of gender discrimination. (See Verdict Form, Doc. No. 58.) The jury awarded back pay in the amount of $250,000 and $350,000 in compensatory damages. (See id. ) The jury also found that Temple's actions regarding the age-based claims were willful, therefore, the back pay award was doubled as liquidated damages under the ADEA. (See id. ) Accordingly, the total verdict was $850,000. (See id. )

Presently before the Court are the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial or, in the Alternative, for a Remittitur filed by Temple (Doc. No. 64); the Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Briggs (Doc. No. 74); the Motion for Front Pay Damages and for a New Trial on Punitive Damages Only filed by Briggs (Doc. No. 65); the Response in Opposition to Motion for Front Pay and New Trial filed by Temple (Doc. No. 75); the Reply in Further Support of Motion for Front Pay and New Trial filed by Briggs (Doc. No. 76); and the Surreply in Opposition to Motion for Front Pay and New Trial filed by Temple (Doc. No. 77).

I. BACKGROUND...478

II. LEGAL STANDARD...484

III. DISCUSSION...486

A. Discrimination Based on Briggs' Age...486

1. Prima Facie Case...487

2. Pretext...491

B. Retaliation for Complaints Regarding Age Discrimination...496

1. Prima Facie Case...497

2. Pretext...499

C. Jury's Responses to Verdict Sheet are not Inconsistent...500

D. Hostile Work Environment Based on Age...503

E. Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment Based on Complaints of Age and Gender Discrimination...506

F. Back Pay and Front Pay...506

1. Temple Misunderstands Briggs' Duty to Mitigate...507

2. The Jury Properly Calculated Briggs' Back Pay Award...510

3. The Court did not Err in Answering a Question Submitted by the Jury during Deliberations...511

4. Briggs is Entitled to a Front Pay Award...512

G. Willfulness under the ADEA...514

H. Compensatory Damages...518

I. Briggs' Motion for a New Trial on Punitive Damages...521

IV. CONCLUSION...523

I. BACKGROUND

Briggs began working for Temple in February 2001 as an Editorial Assistant in the Center for Neurovirology and Cancer Biology. In 2005, she became an Executive Assistant to Interim Dean Allen Nicholson of the College of Science and Technology. At trial, Briggs presented a report prepared by or for Temple's Human Resources Department that explained the reasons Briggs was selected for this position: "The candidate was selected based on her outstanding communication skills both verbal and written. Her previous work experience in developing and writing grant applications, providing editorial assistance, customer service skills, prior university experience, and education made her the best qualified candidate." (Pl.'s Trial Ex. 1, at 2.) Over the next five years, Briggs would work for not only Dean Nicholson, but Dean Keya Sadeghipour, Dean Hai-Lung Dai, and Vice Dean George Palladino. (07/17/2018 AM, Trial Tr. 22:9–15.)

A. Briggs Begins Working as an Executive Assistant for Dr. Jie Wu

In October 2009, Briggs became the Executive Assistant to then-Chair of the Department of Computer Information Services ("CIS"), Dr. Jie Wu ("Wu"). At this time, Briggs also indirectly reported to Greg Wacker ("Wacker"), former Director of Finance and Administration and current Assistant Dean of Finance and Administration. As an Executive Assistant to Wu, Briggs provided administrative support and performed a variety of functions, including directing all ongoing and special projects, developing programs and systems to manage daily activities, and planning and coordinating events. The essential functions of her job also included serving as a liaison for Wu and representatives of other Temple administrative and academic offices, as well as working with a wide array of Temple constituents while ensuring the administrative operation of the CIS department.

Despite testimony that, during her eight years of employment at Temple prior to 2009, Briggs had never been written up for any reason, been given any written discipline or suspension, nor ever been placed on any sort of performance improvement plan, (id. at 22:24–23:13), Briggs testified that Wu would raise his voice at her and yell degrading things at her in public. (Id. at 29:25–30:13 ("There were times when he would come out and yell at me in the front office. I—on two separate occasions—I remember him looking at me and saying, what are you, stupid. And then another time when he said, can't you speak English. And I was—you know, I just don't know how to respond to those kinds of comments.").) Briggs further testified that this conduct caused her embarrassment and that she feared him when he treated her in this way. (Id. at 28:11–29:24.)

B. Wu Makes Age-Related Comment to Briggs

During trial, the jury heard testimony from Briggs that, on November 9, 2011, Wu, who was born in China and had lived there until the late 1980s, discovered that Briggs' birthday was the following day. He asked Briggs how old she was turning, and Briggs responded that she was turning fifty-seven. Wu responded, "You know, in China women are put out to pasture by your age." (Id. at 31:1–13.) Embarrassed, Briggs replied to Wu, in essence, "With all due respect, we're in America and not in China." (Id. at 31:17–25.) Within an hour, Briggs was called into a meeting with Wacker where he informed her that Wu claimed that she had been unprofessional to him and that she was going to be written up. (Id. at 32:13–17.) Briggs explained Wu's remark that had prompted her comment, but Wacker said it did not matter. (Id. at 32:15–20; see also 07/16/2018 AM, Trial Tr. 7:2–10.)

During his own testimony, Wu admitted that, at the time, he knew Briggs was in her 50s, but denied ever saying such a phrase. However, he admitted having discussed "cultural differences" between the United States and China with Briggs. (07/16/2018 PM, Trial Tr. 61:13–62:19.)

Briggs received her first written warning for the November 9, 2011 incident. (Pl.'s Trial Ex. 3.) However, neither Wu nor Wacker could explain to the jury what the exact motivation was for this discipline. (See 07/16/2018 AM, Trial Tr. 55:9–56:1 (Wacker); 07/16/2018 PM, Trial Tr. 65:5–14 (Wu).) Wu testified that he never reviewed any documentation regarding the November 9 incident and resulting discipline. (07/16/2018 PM, Trial Tr. 65:13–20.) Likewise, Wacker testified that, although he never reviewed any documentation regarding this incident, he was certain that the discipline was not a result of Briggs' comments to Wu on November 9. (07/16/2018 AM, Trial Tr. 56:13–19.) When asked about any supporting documentation, Wacker testified that either his assistant, Drew DiMeo ("DiMeo"), or Human Resources Director Dierdre Walton ("Walton") would have it. (Id. ) During her own testimony, however, Walton contradicted Wacker, stating that the discipline was indeed related to Briggs' "blowout between her and Dr. Wu," but that she had never received any supporting emails or documentation concerning the incident from Wu or Wacker. (07/17/2018 PM, Trial Tr. 116:9–12, 119:17–24.)

C. Briggs Makes a Complaint to Temple's Equal Opportunity Compliance Office

After receiving her warning, Briggs contacted Walton directly to explain her story and make a complaint about Wu's comments regarding women in China. (Id. at 121:12–122:6.) Walton testified that it was clear that "Briggs had a problem with the comment" and "was offended by it." (Id. at 122:1, 9.) As a result, Walton instructed Wacker to "look into" the incident by conducting an investigation into Wu's comment to Briggs. (Id. at 127:3–12.) Accordingly, Wacker discussed Briggs' complaint with Wu and other potential witnesses in the office. (Id. at 127:15–128:23.)

Additionally, Briggs complained directly to Wacker about Wu's comments. (07/17/2018 AM, Trial Tr. 33:25–34:6.) Wacker suggested that Briggs discuss her complaints with Sandra Foehl ("Foehl"), Temple's Director of the Equal Opportunity Compliance Office ("EOC"). (07/16/2018 PM, Trial Tr. 7:2–6.) Though Wacker testified that he did not believe Briggs to be making a complaint of age or gender discrimination, he still referred her to Foehl because she handled such personnel complaints. (Id. at 7:7–8:2.)

On July 25, 2012, Briggs emailed Foehl to set up a meeting. (See Pl.'s Trial Ex. 5, at 2.) At that meeting, Briggs informed...