Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., s. 10–1904–cv(L), 10–2031–cv(XAP).

Citation685 F.3d 135,115 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 720
Decision Date10 July 2012
Docket NumberNos. 10–1904–cv(L), 10–2031–cv(XAP).,s. 10–1904–cv(L), 10–2031–cv(XAP).
PartiesHoward CHIN, Richard Wong, Sanrit Booncome, Michael Chung, Plaintiffs–Appellees–Cross–Appellants, The Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York & New Jersey Inc., Christian Eng, Nicholas Yum, Alan Lew, David Lim, George Martinez, Stanley Chin, Milton Fong, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. The PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY, Defendant–Appellant–Cross–Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Karen R. King (Susanna M. Buergel, on the briefs), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, New York, for PlaintiffsAppelleesCross–Appellants and PlaintiffsAppellees.

Kathleen Gill Miller (Milton H. Pachter & James M. Begley, on the briefs), Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, New York, for DefendantAppellantCross–Appellee.

Before: McLAUGHLIN, CABRANES, and LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-appellees, eleven Asian Americans currently or formerly employed as police officers by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), sued the Port Authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that they were passed over for promotions because of their race. The plaintiffs asserted three theories of liability for discrimination: individual disparate treatment, pattern-or-practice disparate treatment, and disparate impact. After a nine-day trial, a unanimous jury found the Port Authority liable for discrimination against seven of the plaintiffs under all three theories and awarded back pay and compensatory damagesto each of those seven plaintiffs. The district court (Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Judge ) also granted equitable relief to certain of the prevailing plaintiffs in the form of retroactive promotions, seniority benefits, and salary and pension adjustments corresponding with the hypothetical promotion dates that the jury apparently selected as a basis for calculating these plaintiffs' back pay awards.

On appeal, the Port Authority argues: (1) that evidence predating the onset of the statute of limitations should not have been admitted; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict with respect to each of the plaintiffs' theories; and (3) that the damages and equitable relief were premised on time-barred claims and were otherwise excessive. With regard to the plaintiffs' individual disparate treatment allegations, we hold that the district court properly admitted background evidence predating the onset of the limitations period and that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that the Port Authority discriminated against the seven prevailing plaintiffs within the limitations period. The district court erred, however, in: (1) submitting the pattern-or-practice disparate treatment theory to the jury in this private, nonclass action; and (2) concluding that the “continuing violation” doctrine applied to the plaintiffs' disparate impact theory so that the jury could award back pay and compensatory damages for harms predating the onset of the statute of limitations. We therefore vacate the back pay for four of the plaintiffs, whose awards correspond with hypothetical promotion dates beyond the limitations period, as well as the injunctive relief for three of the same plaintiffs, and we also vacate the award of compensatory damages for all seven prevailing plaintiffs. We remand for a new trial on damages as to all seven prevailing plaintiffs and for reconsideration of equitable relief to the extent such relief was premised on failures to promote occurring outside the limitations period.

The four plaintiffs who did not prevail at trial cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred by excluding expert testimony from an industrial psychologist. One of these plaintiffs, cross-appellant Howard Chin, further argues that the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction due to the Port Authority's destruction of promotion records. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's determinations as to these matters, we affirm.

Background

The Port Authority is a bi-state transportation agency whose facilities are policed by its Public Safety Department. The eleven plaintiffs-appellees in this case are Asian Americans who were employed by that department as police officers. Christian Eng was hired in 1977, David Lim in 1980, Richard Wong in 1983, Milton Fong in 1985, Howard Chin and Alan Lew in 1987, Stanley Chin in 1988, George Martinez and Nicholas Yum in 1993, and Michael Chung and Sanrit Booncome in 1999. All of the plaintiffs were members of the Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York & New Jersey Inc. (Asian Jade Society), a nonprofit organization comprised of Port Authority police officers of Asian or Pacific Islander origin, whose stated goal is to “promot[e] understanding, friendship and cooperation among members of the Port Authority police department.”

I. The Port Authority Police Department's Promotion Process

During the period relevant to this case, entry-level police officers in the Port Authority'spolice department could be promoted to the rank of Sergeant, the first level in a hierarchy of supervisory positions (followed by Lieutenant, Captain, Inspector, Chief, and finally Superintendent of Police). To become eligible for promotion to Sergeant, a police officer was required (among other requirements) to pass an examination, which would place him on an “eligibility list” for a period of time. When such a list expired, the officer would have to pass the examination again to be placed on the new list. Three lists were in effect during the period relevant to this case: the 1996 List, the 1999 List, and the 2002 List.1 These lists were “horizontal,” which meant that the lists did not rank the officers, but merely established eligibility for promotion.

Each Port Authority facility's commanding officer (generally a Captain) was periodically asked to recommend eligible officers for promotion, at their discretion. The Port Authority did not dictate any criteria for recommendation. Moreover, commanding officers were free to make recommendation decisions themselves, solicit input from the police officers' direct supervisors (generally Sergeants and Lieutenants), or delegate the responsibility entirely to the direct supervisors. A promotion folder was prepared for each recommended officer, which included a performance evaluation by a supervisor, a photograph of the officer, and his record of absences, commendations, awards, and disciplinary history.

Officers recommended in this way were typically considered by the Chiefs' Board, in which the Chiefs would collectively decide which officers to recommend to the Superintendent. The Chiefs' Board did not operate under any written guidelines, and from 1996 through September 2001, took no minutes or notes. Each Chief would vote regarding each recommended officer, and any officer who received a majority of votes from the Chiefs' Board would then be recommended to the Superintendent. This step in the process was not always necessary to promotion, however; for example, Acting Superintendent Joseph Morris did not use the Chiefs' Board at all during his tenure from September 2001 through April 2002.

The ultimate decision to promote an officer to Sergeant belonged solely to the Superintendent. In fact, the Superintendent occasionally promoted officers whom the Chiefs' Board had declined to recommend ahead of those recommended by the Board.

As of January 31, 2001, no Asian American had ever been promoted to Sergeant.

II. Procedural History

On January 31, 2001, the Asian Jade Society filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on behalf of its members, claiming that the Port Authority had denied Asian American police officers promotions because of their race. On August 29, 2003, the EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe the Port Authority had violated Title VII, and on January 25, 2005, the Department of Justice issued a right-to-sue letter to the Asian Jade Society.2 The eleven plaintiffs in this case filed suit on April 15, 2005, alleging that the Port Authority had discriminated against Asian Americans in making promotions to Sergeant.

During discovery, the plaintiffs learned that the Port Authority had not implemented a document retention policy and that, as a result, at least thirty-two promotion folders used to make promotion decisions between August 1999 and August 2002 had been destroyed. The plaintiffs moved for sanctions, seeking an adverse inference against the Port Authority for spoliation. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiffs had ample alternative evidence regarding the relative qualifications of the plaintiffs and that the Port Authority's destruction of the documents was “negligent, but not grossly so.” Port Auth. Police Asian Jade Soc'y of N.Y. & N.J. Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (Port Auth. I), 601 F.Supp.2d 566, 570 (S.D.N.Y.2009).

On the eve of trial, the district court granted the Port Authority's motion to exclude testimony from one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses: Dr. Kathleen Lundquist, an industrial psychologist who specializes in analyzing the reliability and validity of employee-selection procedures. Dr. Lundquist had prepared a report opining on the effectiveness of the Port Authority's promotion process, on whether it included safeguards to prevent bias and discrimination, and on the comparative qualifications of the plaintiffs relative to the qualifications of the officers who had been promoted. Citing Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,3 the district court concluded that Dr. Lundquist's testimony “would not assist the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
633 cases
4 firm's commentaries
  • ESI Discovery Best Practices, Part 6 – Now Comes The Bad News … Potential Consequences For Inadequate Preservation Of ESI
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 3 Octubre 2015
    ...Dec. 19, 2012). [3] 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132619, at *29 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2012). [4] 881 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2012). [5] 685 F.3d 135, 162 (2d Cir. 2012). [6] 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). [7] 846 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1353 (N.D. Ga. The content of this article is in......
  • The Duty To Preserve: Help Me Hold On
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 8 Marzo 2013
    ...Plan v. Banc of America Securities, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), abrogated by Chin v. Port Auth. of New York & NewJersey, 685 F.3d 135, 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (rejecting the notion that a failure to institute a litigation hold is gross negligence per se, and instead finding tha......
  • What Should Be Keeping You Awake At Night: Litigation Holds In Health Care
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 20 Diciembre 2012
    ...v. Banc of America Securities, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), abrogated by Chin v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 685 F.3d 135, 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (rejecting the notion that a failure to institute a litigation hold is gross negligence per se, and instead finding that fa......
  • Electronic Discovery: Being Prepared For Litigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 20 Junio 2013
    ...(SAS), 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010). Id., 2010 WL 184312, at *3. Id. Id. at *5. Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33889, *10 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010) Id. at *11. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e). See FED. R. C......
13 books & journal articles
  • Misconduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...attorneys either assisted in the withholding of documents or were deliberately ignorant. Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey , 685 F.3d 135, 162 (2nd Cir. 2012). A failure to instate a litigation hold does not necessarily constitute gross negligence. The better approach is to co......
  • Gender discrimination and sexual harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I
    • 30 Abril 2014
    ...5. When to Use: The pattern and practice instruction is not available to private, non-class plaintiffs. Chin v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ , 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012), and noting concurrence of other circuits: See Semsroth v. City of Wichita , 304 F. App’x 707, 715 (10th Cir. 2008); Davis v. C......
  • Frequent Evidentiary Battles
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...rarely suffices to rebut an employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for its decision. Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 685 F.3d 135, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2012). Defendant employer appealed after a detrimental holding that it violated Title VII. Plaintiffs theory was that the employ......
  • Statistical Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Employment Evidence
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...of intent, was sufficient to prove plaintiffs’ individual disparate treatment claims. Chin v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey , 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) cert. denied sub nom., Eng v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey , 133 S. Ct. 1724 (2013). Plaintiff, a criminal justice professor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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