Lewis v. Am. Sugar Ref., Inc., Index No. 14-cv-02302 (CRK)
Citation | 325 F.Supp.3d 321 |
Decision Date | 17 August 2018 |
Docket Number | Index No. 14-cv-02302 (CRK) |
Parties | Claude N. LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC. and Mehandra Ramphal, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Megan Sarah Goddard, Goddard Law PLLC, Gabrielle Vinci, Nesenoff & Miltenberg. LLP, New York, NY, Nathaniel K. Charny, Charny and Associates, Rhinebeck, NY, Stephen Bergstein, Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, New Paltz, NY, for Plaintiff.
Michael Thomas Hensley, Bressler, Amery & Ross, PC, New York, NY, Lauren Fenton-Valdivia, Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., Florham Park, NJ, for Defendants.
Before the court are American Sugar Refining, Inc. ("ASR") and Mehandra Ramphal's ("Ramphal") (collectively "Defendants") post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, a new trial or remittitur. See Mem. L. Supp. Defs.' [ASR] & [Ramphal]'s Renewed Mot. J. Matter of Law, or Alt., Mot. New Trial, or Alt., Mot. Remit Damages, May 18, 2018, ECF No. 190 () ; Notice of Mots. J. Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, or Alt. New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or Remittitur, May 21, 2018, ECF No. 191. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' post-trial motions for a new trial, judgment as a matter of law, and remittitur of the jury's actual and punitive damages awards are denied. The court grants Defendants' post-trial motion to remit the jury's compensatory damages award.
Claude N. Lewis ("Plaintiff") brought this action against his employer, ASR, and his supervisor, Ramphal, alleging race and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by Defendants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law. See Compl., Mar. 27, 2014, ECF No. 2; Am. Compl., Sept. 30, 2014, ECF No. 24. Jury selection in this action occurred on April 17, 2018, and a jury trial on this matter was held from April 18, 2018 until April 23, 2018. See Trial Trs., (Apr. 18–23, 2018), ECF Nos. 179–88. After Plaintiff presented his case and rested, Defendants' counsel moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to maintain his punitive damages claim, see Trial Tr. at 912:5–914:19, (Apr. 23, 2018), ECF No. 187 ("Apr. 23 Trial Tr."), his actual damages claim arising from alleged loss of overtime pay, see id. at 914:20–916:14, his state and federal disparate treatment claims, see id. at 916:15–919:18, and his federal and state hostile work environment claims. See id. at 919:19–921:5. Plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity to respond, explaining that Plaintiff presented adequate evidence on all counts, and requesting that the court reserve judgment on Defendants' Rule 50(a) motion and defer its ruling until after the verdict was rendered. See id. at 921:10–924:25. The court reserved ruling on Defendants' Rule 50(a) motion. Id. at 925:5–8. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amounts of $104,000 in actual damages, $250,000 in compensatory damages, and $2,000,000 in punitive damages. Id. at 1082:13–1086:9; Verdict Form at 3–4, Apr. 24, 2018, ECF No. 166. On May 3, 2018, the court granted the parties' consent motion to delay the entry of judgment until the disposition of all post-trial motions. See [Ct. Endorsed] Consent Mot. Delay Entry J., May 3, 2018, ECF No. 172.
Defendants request the court to order a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). See Defs.' Post-Trial Br. at 3–22. Specifically, Defendants contend that: 1) the jury was tainted by empaneled Juror 5 who did not disclose his alleged anti-corporate bias which, if disclosed, would have demonstrated that he could not be impartial; 2) the court erred by failing to dismiss for cause Prospective Juror 27, who Defendants allege was openly biased, causing Defendants to use a peremptory challenge to remove this prospective juror; 3) the court erred by permitting Plaintiff's counsel to introduce evidence of Defendant ASR's financial status, relevant only to punitive damages, throughout the trial; 4) the jury erred in its credibility determinations; 5) the court erred by permitting certain testimony from Plaintiff's witnesses Fred Gaffney ("Gaffney") and Darius Schullere ("Schullere"); and 6) because the jury's verdict is excessive. Id. For the reasons that follow, the court denies Defendants' post-trial motion for a new trial.
Mallis, 717 F.2d at 691 (citation omitted) (citing Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147 (1940) ; 11 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 2805–10, at 37–77 (1973) ).
Defendants argue that the jury was tainted and the trial rendered unfair because Juror 5 failed to disclose his alleged anti-corporate bias, which if disclosed would have demonstrated that he could not be fair and impartial. See Defs.' Post-Trial Br. at 4–7. Plaintiff replies that Defendants' challenge is baseless because Juror 5 unequivocally asserted during voir dire that he could be fair and impartial, and that Juror 5's utterances on social media regarding the role and power of corporations in the United States, discovered post-trial, do not demonstrate his inability to be so or an intent to mislead the court and counsel. See Pl.'s Mem. Law Opp'n Defs.' Mot. New Trial & J. Matter of Law at 47–48, June 22, 2018, ECF No. 198 () . For the reasons that follow, Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive and the court will not order a new trial based on this ground.
The court engages in a two-part inquiry to determine whether a new trial is warranted as a result of purported juror misstatements or nondisclosure. See McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984). The court will order a new trial if it determines that a juror both failed to "answer honestly a material question on voir dire" and "that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." Id. Further, a district court has "broad flexibility" in investigating allegations of juror bias or misconduct when the conduct relates to a juror's own statements. United States v. Peterson, 385 F.3d 127, 134 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Cox, 324 F.3d 77, 86 (2d Cir. 2003) ).
During voir dire, the court and the parties' counsel reviewed each prospective juror's questionnaire, and the court questioned at sidebar each prospective juror who raised a concern among the court or counsel as to that prospective juror's ability to be objective and fair.2 After questioning each prospective juror in this way, the court and counsel discussed any remaining concerns as to that prospective juror's ability to be fair in this case, and the court struck for cause all prospective jurors who the court determined could not be fair. At the request of Defendants' counsel, the court questioned Juror 5 (then-Prospective Juror 28) about an answer he provided on his questionnaire that he previously sought the help of a supervisor or his union for a dispute in the workplace:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. MTA Bus Co.
... ... NYP ... Holdings , Inc. , No. 18 CIV. 12058 (KPF), 2020 ... WL 470011, at *3 n.3 (S.D.N.Y ... significance”); Lewis v. Am. Sugar Ref., Inc. , ... 325 F.Supp.3d 321, 352 (S.D.N.Y ... ...
-
Airday v. City of N.Y.
...there can be but one conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable persons could have reached.’ " Lewis v. Am. Sugar Refining, Inc. , 325 F. Supp. 3d 321, 347-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (brackets omitted) (quoting Samuels v. Air Transp. Local 504 , 992 F.2d 12, 13 (2d Cir. 1993) ). A Rule 50(b) moti......
-
Murray v. Walmart Stores Inc.
...and Busby. Charge of Discrimination (ECF No. 198-8). Then in August 2015, Murray filed this lawsuit. See Lewis v. Am. Sugar Refining, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 321, 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ("Plaintiff participated in a protected activity by . . . filing the present lawsuit."). The message to the Wa......
-
United States v. Asare
...that they are entitled to the higher end of "garden-variety emotional" distress damages. See, e.g. , Lewis v. Am. Sugar Ref., Inc. , 325 F. Supp. 3d 321, 367–68 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (remitting jury award to $115,000 for "garden-variety" emotional distress); Saber , 2018 WL 3491695, at *13 (remit......
-
Punitive Damages
...concluded, therefore, that the evidence was sufficient to award Plaintiff punitive damages. Lewis v. American Sugar Refining, Inc ., 325 F.Supp.3d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The district court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages where Title VII Plaintiff produced......