Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc.

Decision Date11 April 2002
Docket NumberNo. 99-35984.,No. 99-35932.,99-35932.,99-35984.
Citation285 F.3d 1174
PartiesConnie HEMMINGS and Patty Lamphiear, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TIDYMAN'S INC., a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Connie Hemmings and Patty Lamphiear, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tidyman's Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Richard C. Eymann, Eymann, Allison, & Hunter, Spokane, WA, for the plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants.

James Michael Kalamon, Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, Brooke & Miller, Spokane, WA, for the defendant-appellant-cross-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington; Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-00068-WFN.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court as to Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, in which THOMAS, Circuit Judge, joined. Judge THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court as to Parts VIII and IX. Judge PREGERSON joined as to Part VIII and dissents specially from Part IX. RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judge joined as to Parts I, II, III, IVA, IVB, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX and filed a dissenting opinion as to Part IVC.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises out of a jury verdict in favor of two women who sued their employer for sex discrimination. The women, Connie Hemmings ("Hemmings") and Patty Lamphiear ("Lamphiear"), charged their employer, Tidyman's Inc. ("Tidyman's"), with discriminating against them on the basis of their sex in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws by failing to pay them wages and compensation equal to their male counterparts, failing to promote them, and retaliating against them after they complained of the discrimination.

Tidyman's appeals the jury verdict and damages award in favor of the plaintiffs on four grounds. First, Tidyman's contends that the district court erred at trial by admitting into evidence improper statistical expert testimony. Second, Tidyman's argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying Tidyman's motion for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient, that misconduct by the plaintiffs' counsel permeated the trial and prejudiced the jury, and that the size of the jury verdict was excessive. Third, Tidyman's challenges the district court's ruling that the plaintiffs could seek "double damages" under a Washington state law that provides for the doubling of any wages willfully and intentionally withheld from employees. See RCW §§ 49.52.050, 49 .52.070. Tidyman's argues that the district court erred by not applying the Title VII cap on compensatory damages to the plaintiffs' damage awards for future losses and for violations of Washington state law. Finally, Tidyman's argues that the Washington state law is intended to cover only accrued wages that are not paid, rather than wages not paid because the employer paid a lower wage as a result of discrimination.

Hemmings and Lamphiear cross-appeal on the issue of punitive damages. After the jury awarded the plaintiffs punitive damages, the district court granted Tidyman's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the evidence did not support punitive damages. The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred as a matter of law by applying the wrong standard to determine whether the evidence supported the punitive damages awards. The plaintiffs ask that we reinstate the punitive damages awards in full, arguing that we should not apply the Title VII damages cap to these awards because it is unconstitutional. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by excluding costs for depositions and the preparation of certain affidavits from the attorney fees award.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the district court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages, and we reverse the award of double damages under the Washington state statute. In all other respects, we affirm the district court. We conclude that Title VII's cap on punitive damages is constitutional, direct the district court to reinstate the jury's punitive damages award, and apply the Title VII cap to the punitive damages.

I. Factual Background
A. Connie Hemmings.

In 1973, Connie Hemmings began working in the Billings, Montana office of Tidyman's, a chain of grocery stores in the Pacific Northwest. She started as an accounts payable clerk in the bookkeeping department, and was promoted to officer manager. In 1986, the Billings office closed, and Tidyman's transferred its corporate headquarters to Spokane, Washington. Hemmings moved with her family to Spokane to work in the new office because of the opportunities it offered her for career advancement.

Hemmings was promoted to controller in 1987, replacing Mike Davis, who became the Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") and Hemmings' direct supervisor. Davis consistently gave Hemmings outstanding job performance evaluations. Hemmings decided to go back to college during this period to enhance her career potential. She obtained her bachelor degree in business management and graduated with honors.

Hemmings oversaw a number of employees as part of her job. Hemmings was concerned about the lack of women in management positions at Tidyman's and what she perceived as roadblocks to their promotions. Hemmings initiated conversations about this topic with various executives and managers of Tidyman's, including Jack Heuston, the President.1 Heuston laughed at the suggestion that more women should be in management and told Hemmings that women in management would "need to lift 50 pounds of potatoes."

In May of 1996, Hemming's supervisor, Davis, was promoted to Chief Operating Officer and the CFO position opened. Trial witnesses testified that Hemmings was well-qualified for the CFO position. She had experience overseeing financial statement reporting, supervising staff, working with internal audits, and working with banks and third-party administrators.

Hemmings was interviewed for the position along with another woman and one man. This was the first time Tidyman's used an interview process to hire for an upper management position; previously, job openings were not posted and individuals were merely informed that they received the promotion. An all-male hiring committee interviewed Hemmings. The hiring committee concluded that Hemmings demonstrated poor presentation skills during her interview, and hired the male candidate, Lee Clark. Davis told Hemmings that she was not hired because the board "did not want to work with an emotional woman."

On July 1, 1996, Hemmings and the other plaintiff, Patty Lamphiear, served Tidyman's with a demand letter outlining their claims of discrimination. Hemmings testified that the new CEO, John Maxwell, intimidated and harassed her in response to the demand letter, and attempted to discuss the possible lawsuit against Tidyman's in the absence of her attorney. When Hemmings suggested that she set up a meeting with her attorney present, Maxwell became angry and told Hemmings that he would "sooner pay $5 million to fight the lawsuit than to pay [her] a penny."

Hemmings and other Tidyman's' employees testified that Hemmings was denied admission to meetings and excluded from the chain of command pursuant to Maxwell's instructions after the discrimination letter. She no longer had the power to hire and fire staff. Despite the company's growth, Hemmings was not permitted to hire adequate staff for the expansion. Hemmings' salary was frozen from 1996 until 1999. She received a raise in March of 1999, days before the trial began. A treating psychiatrist testified that Hemmings developed severe depression as a result of her work environment.

B. Patty Lamphiear.

Patty Lamphiear started working for Tidyman's in 1984 as a part-time data entry clerk. She was promoted as the administrative assistant to Ken Ormsby, the manager of the Customer Prepaid Inventory ("CPI") department. When Ormsby was moved to the position of bakery supervisor, Lamphiear assumed the CPI manager duties, but did not receive a salary increase for her new responsibilities. Although as CPI manager, Ormsby was paid $45,000 per year, Lamphiear's salary remained $9.75 per hour (less than $25,000 per year). In addition to her CPI managerial duties, Lamphiear later assumed responsibility for purchasing all direct store delivery ("DSD") products. Lamphiear ran the DSD department alone and without supervision, but was not given a title or supervisory powers, and her salary remained at less than $25,000 per year.

Tidyman's created a new position, grocery supervisor, in 1993. Lamphiear was not given an opportunity to apply for the unposted position, despite her familiarity and experience with the requisite computer and merchandising skills. George Hauserman was hired for the position, where he remained for one year, at an annual salary of $82,000. When Hauserman left, Lamphiear indicated her interest in the position to Jerry Streeter, the Chief Operating Officer. Streeter's response was to laugh and tell Lamphiear "there is no way that you could get the position, because the men in the company would run right over you." Another employee, Gregg Babbit, was promoted to the position and became Lamphiear's supervisor, even though Lamphiear possessed relevant computer skills and experience that Babbit lacked.

In 1995, Lamphiear reported to Tidyman's management that Babbit had made inappropriate sexual remarks during a meeting.2 Ron Bashaw, a general manager who resigned from the company in part to protest its unfair treatment of women, testified regarding Babbit's attitude towards women employees as follows: "I don't believe [Greg Babbit] thought that [women] were capable of working in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
325 cases
  • International Healthcare v. Global Healthcare
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 11 January 2007
    ...credibility should not keep expert testimony from being admitted. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S.Ct. 2786; Hemmings v. Tidyman's, Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1188 (9th Cir.2002). Defendants' principal substantive argument with respect to Borgida's report is that his conclusions are fundamenta......
  • Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 11 December 2007
    ...general terms, provide estimates of the effect of independent variables on a single dependent variable. See Hemmings v. Tidyman's, Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1183-84 & n. 9 (9th Cir.2002). The purpose of this methodology is to estimate the extent to which a particular independent variable (in thi......
  • In re W.R. Grace & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 11 June 2012
    ...civil rights violations, and violations of international air transportation laws and regulations. See, e.g., Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1202 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a cap on Title VII compensatory damages does not violate the Seventh Amendment); Estate of Sisk v. Manza......
  • Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 30 September 2014
    ...issue has not been decided, federal courts must predict how the state's highest court would resolve it.” Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1203 (9th Cir.2002) (internal citations omitted). Although the California Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue, state courts hav......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • This Week At The Ninth: Religious Beliefs And Loyalty Oaths
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 April 2023
    ...and (3) show a causal relationship between the challenged practices or criteria and the disparate impact." Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1190 (9th Cir. 2002). In holding plaintiff met these requirements, the Court rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff needed to produce s......
7 books & journal articles
  • Deposing & examining the mental health expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses
    • 31 March 2022
    ...that the federal caps do not apply to claims brought under state anti-discrimination statutes. See, e.g., Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002), citing Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, 212 F.3d 493, 509-10 (9th Cir. 2000). Although the Title VII plaintiff is ent......
  • Deposing & examining the expert statistician
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses
    • 31 March 2022
    ...should be left to the jury to determine. A number of cases have followed the Bazemore reasoning. See, e.g., Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1188-89 (9th Cir.2002) (“[T]he law does not require the near-impossible standard of eliminating all possible non-discriminatory factors…. We......
  • Witness
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • 5 May 2022
    ...deviated from industry standards did not improperly reach legal conclusion on the issue of bad faith. Hemmings v. Tidyman’s, Inc. , 285 F.3d 1174, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2002). In sex discrimination suit, trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting expert testimony from statistician to sho......
  • Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 67-5, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...416 n.78 (4th ed. 2002).90. See, e.g., Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191, 1196 (4th Cir. 1989).91. See, e.g., Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1202 (9th Cir. 2002); Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155, 1159-65 (3d Cir. 1989); Boyd, 877 F.2d at 1196.92. See, e.g., Granfinanciera, S.A. v.......
  • 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