Denhof v. City of Grand Rapids

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Merritt
• Citation: Denhof v. City of Grand Rapids, 494 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2007)
• Decision Date: 28 February 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-1819.,No. 05-1820.,No. 05-1904.,05-1819.,05-1820.,05-1904.
• Parties: Patricia DENHOF and Renee LeClear, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

494 F.3d 534

Patricia DENHOF and Renee LeClear, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 05-1819.

No. 05-1820.

No. 05-1904.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: October 31, 2006.

Decided and Filed: February 28, 2007.^*

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 2, 2007.^**

ARGUED:

Stuart N. Dowty, Pitt, McGehee, Mirer, Palmer & Rivers, Royal Oak, Michigan, Christine A. Yared, Law Office, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants. G. Douglas Walton, Nantz, Litowich,

Smith & Girard, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF:

Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Mirer, Palmer & Rivers, Royal Oak, Michigan, Christine A. Yared, Law Office, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants. G. Douglas Walton, Nantz, Litowich, Smith & Girard, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Marcelyn A. Stepanski, Johnson, Rosati, LaBarge, Aseltyne & Field, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: MERRITT and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District Judge.^***

MERRITT, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GWIN, D. J., joined. BATCHELDER, J. (pp. 549-51), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

In this employment retaliation case under Title VII and Michigan state law, plaintiffs-appellants Patricia Denhof and Renee LeClear appeal the District Court's order granting the defendant's alternative motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, Fed.R.Civ.P.,¹ a new jury trial under Rule 59, Fed. R. Civ. P.² and for a substantial common law remittitur of the compensatory damages awarded by the jury.³ Grand Rapids also cross-appeals six decisions of the district court, primarily related to evidentiary issues and damage computations. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district court's alternative orders granting judgment as a matter of law for the defendant and a new jury trial. We affirm the grant of remittitur. We also affirm the district court's decisions on each of the defendant's six cross-appeals.

I. Background

This case turns on the separate, but related, claims of two female police officers who were relieved of their duties after being found psychologically unfit to continue in their jobs. Because the facts of the case are unique to each plaintiff, we proceed with them in turn.

A. Patricia Denhof

Patricia Denhof worked as a police officer for the Grand Rapids, Michigan, Police Department for 18 years prior to being relieved of her duties in 2002. Her removal from the police force, like that of her co-plaintiff LeClear, has its roots in a lawsuit filed in January 2001 in Michigan state court. In that lawsuit, nine female Grand Rapids police officers, including both plaintiffs here, claimed gender discrimination, retaliation and harassment in connection with their employment.

In November 2001, the state court held an eight-day hearing on the plaintiffs' motions to enjoin ongoing retaliation they claimed they were suffering as a consequence of filing the lawsuit. Denhof testified at the hearing, claiming that Grand Rapids police officers were behind an attempted break-in at her home, had followed her as she drove to work and had tapped her home telephone. She also claimed that her fellow officers had failed to provide back-up on several occasions when she requested it. After the attempted break-in at her home, Denhof communicated to her supervisor, Sergeant Potter, that she believed someone from the department was responsible and that she had taken out and loaded her personal handgun in case there was another break-in attempt. She also told Potter, "to spread the word, that I will kill anyone who comes into my house." J.A. at 1779-80. In her testimony in this case, Denhof clarified that she was referring to individuals who would come into her house illegally. At the conclusion of the hearing on December 3, the state court denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction. The judge specifically cast doubt on the veracity of all of Denhof's allegations and labeled her story of being followed a "gross exaggeration." J.A. at 2490-92.

Ten days after the hearing ended, Grand Rapids Police Chief Harry Dolan sent a letter to Dr. Glen Peterson, a police psychologist who performed evaluations for the department, asking whether, in light of the recent revelations, Dr. Peterson recommended that Denhof undergo a fitness for duty evaluation.⁴ Dolan expressed concern that Denhof's testimony revealed emotional instability that "may cause her to endanger herself or others on the job." J.A. at 2161. The most pressing issue, according to Dolan, was the perceived threat that Denhof made to her fellow officers in the statement to Sergeant Potter.⁵ In addition to the allegations revealed in her testimony, Dolan also included information about other incidents involving Denhof that he collected from members of his command staff following the injunction hearing.

On January 11, 2002, Dr. Peterson replied by letter, recommending that Denhof undergo a fitness for duty exam. He agreed with Dolan that Denhof's testimony raised concerns regarding her fitness to continue in her police duties. While presumably reserving judgment on Denhof's fitness until he examined her in person, Dr. Peterson observed:

Clearly, the tension between Ofc. Denhof and the department has escalated to such a degree that it is difficult to imagine how she could continue to work in this environment. In that sense, whether the hostility is generated by her own actions or by mean-spirited fellow employees or command staff is almost irrelevant. It is something like a marriage gone bad. We can argue for years about whose fault it is, but at some point we are best off simply separating, for the good of all persons involved.

J.A. at 215. One week later, the department followed up on Dr. Peterson's recommendation and ordered Denhof to undergo a fitness for duty examination. In addition, the department confiscated Denhof's badge and police-issued firearm and placed her on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the evaluation. Denhof followed these orders and met with Dr. Peterson for several sessions. During these appointments, Dr. Peterson administered a battery of psychological tests and evaluated Denhof interpersonally.

On April 2, 2002, Dr. Peterson reported to Chief Dolan that Officer Denhof was unfit for duty. J.A. at 235-57. He concluded that Denhof suffered from "some kind of emotional instability . . . that impairs her ability to efficiently perform her duties." Notably, he stopped short of any formal diagnosis of Denhof's mental condition. In her testimony in the present case, Denhof noted a series of factual errors in Dr. Peterson's report. See Denhof direct, R. 508, 43-54. Most notably, Dr. Peterson opined that Denhof's rough treatment of an armed robbery suspect supported his conclusion that she had difficulty maintaining her emotions. Denhof testified that she did not assault the suspect in question, pointing out that she received a commendation from the department for her role in the suspect's apprehension.

Police department and city officials provided Denhof with a copy of Dr. Peterson's report in an April 18 meeting. In this meeting, Denhof provided the city with two reports from her personal doctors, one each from Dr. Lawrence Probes, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Mark Kane, a psychologist. The reports concluded that Denhof did not present any "evidence of diagnosable or treatable psychiatric disorder." See Denhof direct, R. 508, 29. The doctors further agreed that Denhof was fit to return to work. Id. at 29-32. George Childers, a labor relations officer for the city, told Denhof that he would forward the reports to Dr. Peterson, but there is no evidence in the record that Peterson ever received the reports. At this meeting, the city denied a request by Denhof and a union representative that the city obtain a second opinion. One week later, the city converted Denhof to unpaid leave.

After the city converted her to unpaid leave, Denhof called Childers and inquired about her employment status. Childers informed her that, because she had refused treatment, the city was going to terminate her on May 10. When Denhof protested that no one had recommended she undergo any type of psychological or psychiatric treatment, Childers relented and said he would look into the matter.

The city then arranged a follow-up appointment for Denhof to meet with Dr. Peterson on May 10 to discuss his suggested course of treatment. Denhof arrived at Dr. Peterson's office at the appointed time accompanied by her attorney. The precise sequence of events that followed is disputed, but it is apparent that a confrontation ensued and that Dr. Peterson eventually asked Denhof and her attorney to leave. Denhof testified that her attorney offered to remain in the waiting room while Denhof met with Dr. Peterson in his office, but Dr. Peterson declined. Dr. Peterson testified that he could not recall whether such an offer was extended, but admitted he might not have gone forward with the appointment under those conditions. See Peterson direct, R. 515, 64.

Dr. Peterson provided a set of treatment recommendations for Denhof in a May 22 letter to George Childers; Kurt Kimball, the city manager, forwarded the report to Denhof on May 31. J.A. at 2387-89, 2500. In this second report, Dr. Peterson suggested that Denhof suffered from a Personality Disorder and recommended that she receive counseling and medication to address it.⁶ He recommended that Denhof continue to receive treatment from Drs. Probes and Kane, and suggested a course of treatment involving psychiatric medication. Interestingly, he noted that he had not seen any documentation from Denhof's treatment by Drs. Probes and Kane, even though George Childers had assured Denhof on April 18 that their reports would be forwarded to Dr. Peterson.

In his May 31 cover letter, City Manager Kimball informed Denhof that in...