Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Cigar City Motors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 8:18-cv-2055-CPT |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CIGAR CITY MOTORS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Before the Court are Defendants Cigar City Motors, Inc., Tallahassee CCM, LLC, Gulf Coast CCM, Inc., and Panama City Beach Cycles LLC's (collectively, Cigar City) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) (Doc. 166) and Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) post-trial motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 156). The Court conducted hearings on these motions and sought supplemental briefing from the parties relative to the EEOC's request for injunctive relief. (Docs. 192, 201-203). Upon careful review of the parties' submissions and for the reasons set forth below Cigar City's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied and the EEOC's motion for injunctive relief is granted in part and denied in part.
This case stems from a decision made by Cigar City in April 2015 not to promote one of its employees, Virginia Duncan, to the position of General Manager (GM) at its Harley-Davidson dealership in Tampa, Florida. In its operative complaint, the EEOC averred that Cigar City engaged in this adverse employment action based on Duncan's sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. (Doc. 19). To address this alleged conduct, the EEOC sought damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Id.
At the close of discovery, Cigar City filed a motion for summary judgment (Docs. 49, 58, 64), which the Court denied (Doc. 85). The case thereafter proceeded to a jury trial that lasted seven days. (Docs. 163, 169, 175-78, 185). Counsel for both sides-Beatriz Andre and Brandi Meredith for the EEOC and Thomas Gonzalez and Jake Proudfoot for Cigar City-were well-prepared throughout the trial and represented their respective clients with the highest degree of professionalism.
During the course of the trial, the parties introduced numerous exhibits and elicited testimony from multiple witnesses, including Duncan. Id. That evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the EEOC and construing all reasonable inferences in its favor, revealed the following.
At all times relevant to this case, Cigar City operated Harley-Davidson dealerships in five Florida cities: Tampa, Brandon, New Port Richey, Tallahassee, and Panama City Beach.[1](Doc. 185 at 53). Cigar City's Vice-President, Gary Bang, oversaw the operations of these five dealerships and had the sole authority to hire the GM for each location. (Doc. 178 at 119; Doc. 185 at 53). Cigar City did not internally advertise or post announcements for its GM vacancies (Doc. 178 at 119) but did at times utilize a mentoring program to assist participants in the program in securing these positions. (Doc. 163 at 231; Doc. 178 at 165-67). Bang himself eschewed any formal process for selecting GMs, electing instead simply to identify those individuals he thought could fill the role and then choosing one of them for the job. (Doc. 178 at 190-92).
Bang did, however, consider a number of criteria in picking GMs. These criteria included the individual's experience in sales, which Bang believed to be essential, along with the individual's familiarity with all major departments of a Harley-Davidson dealership, which Bang preferred but did not require. Id. at 120-21. He also favored candidates who were already employed at the company, especially those who were working at the dealership with the GM vacancy. Id. at 121-22. In the end, most of the GMs Bang selected had previously served as General Sales Managers-which was the position immediately under the GM slot-before becoming GMs. Id. at 12324. That said, Bang never promoted any females to the GM position irrespective of whether they had been a General Sales Manager until after the EEOC filed the instant lawsuit. Id. at 196-98, 201-202.
Prior to being employed by Cigar City, Duncan held a number of jobs in the motor vehicle industry. For roughly a year, she owned and operated an aftermarket store that repaired Harley-Davidson motorcycles and sold both parts and apparel. (Doc. 176 at 230-32). After this position, Duncan worked in various departments at a small Harley-Davidson dealership in Augusta, Georgia, ultimately becoming its GM. Id. at 232-34. For the next ten years, Duncan served in several capacities at a large car dealership and, in the two or three years immediately before joining Cigar City, was the General Sales Manager at a Harley-Davidson dealership in Whitfield, Virginia, a Financing and Insurance (F&I) Manager at a Harley-Davidson dealership in Melbourne, Florida, and, later, a Sales Manager at the same Melbourne dealership. Id. at 235-43.
Duncan was hired by Cigar City in 2012 and was assigned to its New Port Richey location, where she co-managed the F&I and Sales departments with Scott Pilman. Id. at 245-49. Ken Edwards, a former colleague of Duncan's who was selected to be the GM at the New Port Richey store, recommended that Cigar City bring Duncan on board. Id. at 245-46.
Duncan made her interest in the GM position known to Cigar City's upper management early on in her employment there. (Doc. 163 at 102-103). During her tenure at the New Port Richey dealership, for example, Duncan began participating in the company's GM training program, which had participants engage in monthly mentoring sessions with Bang. (Doc. 177 at 39).
When Edwards stepped down from his post as the New Port Richey GM, Cigar City chose Pilman to take his place. Id. at 53-54. Duncan testified that Cigar City did so despite Edwards recommending that she succeed him. Id. at 53. Also around this time, the General Sales Manager at the Brandon location, Robert Hammers, was promoted to be the GM at that dealership. (Doc. 176 at 64-67; Doc. 185 at 54).
Duncan eventually became the General Sales Manager of the Tampa store, where she reported to the dealership's GM, Mike Rendine. (Doc. 177 at 54-56). Rendine subsequently departed that location and was replaced by Patrick Hunt, who had been the GM at the Tallahassee store. Id. at 61, 77-78; (Doc. 178 at 266).
About nine months after Hunt became the Tampa GM, Cigar City asked him to resume being the GM at the Tallahassee location, thereby creating a GM vacancy at the Tampa dealership. (Doc. 177 at 77-78). Hunt-like his predecessor, Edwards- recommended that Duncan fill this spot. (Doc. 178 at 271).
Before Cigar City chose Hunt's permanent successor in Tampa, it requested that Gary Postle serve as the store's interim GM. Id. at 76-79. Postle's title with Cigar City was Executive Manager, and one of his functions was to provide training both to new hires and to existing employees who were transitioning into new positions. (Doc. 176 at 74). While the interim GM in Tampa, Postle was asked by Bang to train Duncan and also to assess whether she was ready to become the full-time GM at that location. (Doc. 178 at 165).
Throughout her evaluation period, Duncan continued to perform her duties as General Sales Manager and shadowed Postle as well. (Doc. 177 at 80-89). After a few months had passed, Postle told Bang that he did not believe Duncan was ready to assume the role of GM. (Doc. 163 at 240). Although Bang tasked Postle with offering such a recommendation, the final decision as to whether Duncan was to be promoted rested with Bang. (Doc. 178 at 154-55). Cigar City then chose Steven Snell, who was the Sales Manager at the Brandon dealership at the time, to replace Hunt as the Tampa GM. (Doc. 176 at 130-32; Doc. 185 at 55). Snell testified that he did not want this position but felt pressured to accept it in order to remain at the company. Id. at 16667. Duncan resigned shortly thereafter. (Doc. 177 at 92).
At the close of the evidence, each side orally moved for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) (Docs. 146, 147), and the Court reserved ruling on those motions. After a period of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the EEOC on the issue of liability and awarded it $500,000 in punitive damages but no compensatory relief. (Doc. 145; Doc. 169 at 67). The Clerk of Court entered a judgment reflecting the jury's verdict several weeks later. (Doc. 154). The instant motions followed.
The Court commences its analysis with Cigar City's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b). (Doc. 166). In support of that motion, Cigar City contends that neither the jury's liability finding nor the jury's punitive damages award is adequately substantiated by the record. Id. The Court will consider each of these contentions in turn.
Title VII generally prohibits an employer from discriminating against its employees because of their sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). An employer is deemed to engage in such prohibited conduct when sex “was a motivating factor for [an] employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).
Intentional employment discrimination can be proven in one of three ways: (1) by presenting direct evidence of discriminatory intent; (2) by satisfying the burdenshifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); or (3) by producing a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence warranting an inference of intentional discrimination. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., 918 F.3d 1213, 1220 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (citation omitted).
“Direct evidence is evidence that establishes the existence of discriminatory intent behind the employment...
To continue reading
Request your trial