Gilster v. Primebank
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa |
| Citation | 884 F.Supp.2d 811 |
| Docket Number | No. C 10–4084–MWB.,C 10–4084–MWB. |
| Parties | Mindy GILSTER, Plaintiff, v. PRIMEBANK, Primebank, Inc., and Joseph Strub, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 14 August 2012 |
884 F.Supp.2d 811
Mindy GILSTER, Plaintiff,
v.
PRIMEBANK, Primebank, Inc., and Joseph Strub, Defendants.
No. C 10–4084–MWB.
United States District Court,
N.D. Iowa,
Western Division.
Aug. 14, 2012.
[884 F.Supp.2d 828]
Brooke Catherine Timmer, Whitney C. Judkins, Fiedler & Timmer, P.L.L.C., Urbandale, IA, for Plaintiff.
Douglas L. Phillips, Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., Sioux City, IA, for Defendants.
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦ ¦
+-----------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦INTRODUCTION ¦829 ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II. ¦BACKGROUND ¦829 ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III. ¦ANALYSIS ¦831 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦A. Defendants' Motion For Judgment As A Matter of Law, New Trial, Or Remittitur ¦831 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Judgment as a Matter of Law on Liability Issues ¦831 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Sufficiency of the Evidence—Sexual Harassment ¦832 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Sufficiency of the Evidence—Retaliation ¦836 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Judgment as a Matter of Law and Remittitur on Damages ¦840 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Punitive Damages ¦840 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Emotional Distress Damages ¦842 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Back Pay and Medical Expenses ¦846 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦New Trial ¦847 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B. ¦Gilster's Motion For Equitable Relief And Front Pay ¦854 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Front Pay ¦854 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Factors in Determining Front Pay ¦855 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Calculation of Front Pay ¦859 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Injunction Against Primebank ¦863 ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Additional Equitable Relief—Letter of Reference ¦867 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C. ¦Gilster's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs ¦868 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Applicable Standards ¦869 ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Reasonable Hourly Rates ¦870 ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Reasonable Hours Worked ¦872 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Reduction for Block-billing ¦873 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Reduction for Lack of Specificity ¦874 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Reduction for Failure to Follow Local Rule ¦875 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d. ¦Reduction for Overstaffing ¦875 ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦e. ¦Problems with Billing Judgment and Format ¦877 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦4. ¦Calculation of Fees ¦878 ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦5. ¦Award of Costs ¦879 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦D. ¦Interest ¦884 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Pre–judgment Interest ¦884 ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Post–judgment Interest ¦885 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦IV. ¦CONCLUSION ¦885 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Orders Regarding Post–Trial Motions ¦885 ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Summary of Damages ¦885 ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦C. ¦Order for Judgment ¦886 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[884 F.Supp.2d 829]
Plaintiff Mindy Gilster testified at trial, “I wanted to be left alone, and I wanted to do my work....” Gilster expected, as an employee with defendant Primebank, only the simplest guarantee of workplace equality promised by Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. “Men and women have every right to be left alone without sexual abuse in the workplace.” Eich v. Bd. of Regents for Cent. Mo. State Univ., 350 F.3d 752, 762 (8th Cir.2003). Likewise, men and women have every right to be left alone after they report sexual harassment. A jury found that defendants Joseph Strub and Primebank violated these basic tenets of our civil rights laws when Joseph Strub sexually harassed Mindy Gilster and, later, when Strub and Primebank retaliated against Gilster for reporting the sexual harassment and retaliation she experienced. The jury awarded a total of $900,301.22 in damages.
Before me now are the parties' post-trial motions.
This sexual harassment and retaliation case arose from plaintiff Mindy Gilster's employment with Primebank at its Sioux City, Iowa, branch, where she worked as a credit administrator from December 3, 2007, until her termination on February 10, 2011. Gilster brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code § 216.1 et seq., against Primebank, Primebank, Inc.,1
[884 F.Supp.2d 830]
and Joseph Strub, Primebank's Sioux City market president and Gilster's supervisor, alleging that Joseph Strub sexually harassed her and that Strub and Primebank retaliated against her for reporting the sexual harassment and for reporting retaliation.
Beginning April 3, 2012, the parties tried the case to an eight-person jury. Following seven days of evidence and argument, the case was submitted to the jury on the morning of April 11, 2012. After approximately six hours of deliberation, the jury returned its verdict on April 11, 2012, in favor of Gilster on both her sexual harassment and retaliation claims. On Gilster's sexual harassment claim, the jury found that Joseph Strub's sexual harassment resulted in a significant change in employment status and that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment.2 For both Gilster's sexual harassment and retaliation claims, the jury rejected the defendants' partial “after-acquired evidence” defense, determining that the defendants failed to prove that, even if they had not terminated Gilster on February 10, 2011, they would have terminated her on September 1, 2011, the date on which they discovered she had been forwarding e-mails to her attorneys from her work e-mail during work hours.3
The jury awarded Gilster a total of $900,301.22 in damages, broken down as follows: on Gilster's sexual harassment claim, $20,000 for past emotional distress, $60,000 for future emotional distress, $28,820.12 in back pay, $1330.49 for past medical expenses, and $200,000 in punitive damages; on Gilster's retaliation claim, $20,000 for past emotional distress, $140,000 for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kassman v. KPMG LLP, 11 Civ. 3743(JMF).
...547–48 (9th Cir.2006); Chen–Oster, 2012 WL 205875, at *5–6,overruled in relevant part by877 F.Supp.2d at 121–22;Gilster v. Primebank, 884 F.Supp.2d 811, 864–866 (N.D.Iowa 2012); Levin v. Madigan, 697 F.Supp.2d 958, 975 (N.D.Ill.2010); see also True v. Neb., 612 F.3d 676, 679 (8th Cir.2010) ......
-
Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, 15-0574
...the adverse employment decision.' " (alteration in original) (quoting City of Hampton , 554 N.W.2d at 535 )); Gilster v. Primebank , 884 F.Supp.2d 811, 831 n.4 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (analyzing both Title VII and ICRA together using determinative-factor approach), overruled on other grounds , 747......
-
Morales v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 8:08CV504
...circuits is to permit awards to reimburse counsel for the reasonable costs of online legal research."); see Gilster v. Primebank, 884 F. Supp. 2d 811, 880 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (finding that computerized legal research fees are traditionally billed to clients and, thus, if reasonable and adequat......
-
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., C 11-4047-MWB
...the date of the commencement of the action," consistent with the plain language in Iowa Code § 668.13(1). See Gilster v. Primebank, 884 F. Supp. 2d 811, 884 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (awarding pre-judgment interest under Iowa law on a plaintiff's entire back pay award accruing from the date the plai......