Lopez v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc.
| Citation | 426 F.Supp.2d 914 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. C03-4030-MWB.,No. C03-4015-MWB.,C03-4015-MWB.,C03-4030-MWB. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
| Parties | Anita LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, INC., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Maricela Villalpando, Plaintiff, v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant. |
Jay Elliott Denne, Stanley E. Munger, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.
Anita Lena Dhar, Mark W. Thomas, Grefe & Sidney, Des Moines, IA, Barry Alan Hartstein, Kirsten Milton Evans, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S AMENDED RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND, ALTERNATIVELY FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR REMITTITUR OF ALL AMOUNTS AWARDED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
A. Procedural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
B. Factual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
1. Overview of Aramark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
2. Employment of Anita Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
3. Employment of Maricela Villalpando . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
A. Arguments Of The Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
1. The defendant's arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
2. The plaintiffs' arguments in resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
3. The defendant's reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936
B. Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
1. Standards for judgment as a matter of law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
2. Federal and Iowa law claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
3. The retaliation claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
a. Failure to engage in protected activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
b. Failure to prove adverse employment action . . . . . . . . . . . 940
c. Failure to prove causal connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
d. Proffer of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and pretext . . . 943
4. The hostile work environment sexual harassment claims . . . . . . . . 944
a. Actionable harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
b. Applicability of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense . . . . 947
c. Iowa law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
5. The emotional distress damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
6. Villalpando's entitlement to back pay damages . . . . . . . . . . . . 952
7. The punitive damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
a. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
b. Malice or reckless indifference by managerial employee . . . . . 957
c. Aramark's good-faith defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
C. The Amount Of The Punitive Damages Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
1. Excessive verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
2. Statutory damages cap provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
3. Constitutionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
a. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
b. Analysis under the Gore guideposts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
i. Reprehensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
ii. Proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
iii. Comparable civil or criminal penalties . . . . . . . . . . 971
iv. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
4. Remittitur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
D. New Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
1. Standards under Rule 59(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
2. The merits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
III. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Following a five-day jury trial in this hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation case brought by two former employees of a local provider of uniform and career apparel, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the two individual plaintiffs. The jury awarded both plaintiffs past emotional distress and punitive damages on both their hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation claims. A number of post-trial motions followed the jury's disposition of this case. Not surprisingly, in light of the rather generous verdict, the defendant seeks judgment as a matter of law on both the plaintiffs' hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation claims and the corresponding awards of punitive damages. In the alternative, the defendant seeks a new trial on the issue of punitive damages and/or remittitur of all amounts awarded to the plaintiffs. Predictably, the plaintiffs resist the defendant's motion on all grounds.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Anita Lopez (Case No. C03-4015-MWB) and Maricela Villalpando (Case No. C03-4030-MWB) filed separate law suits against their former employer, defendant Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., (hereinafter "Aramark" or "defendant") each asserting claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment. In addition, Villalpando contended she was constructively discharged by Aramark as the result of sexual harassment and retaliation. By order dated March 18, 2004 (Doc. No. 19), the court consolidated the plaintiffs' separate lawsuits for trial. A five-day jury trial commenced on October 31, 2005. The jury returned a verdict in favor of both plaintiffs on their claims of hostile environment sexual harassment and retaliation (Doc. No. 60).1 More specifically, with respect to Anita Lopez, the jury found Lopez proved her hostile environment sexual harassment claim and awarded her $30,000.00 in past emotional distress damages and $250,000.00 in punitive damages. In addition, the jury found in Lopez's favor on her claim of retaliation and awarded her $5,000.00 in past emotional distress damages and $10,000.00 in punitive damages. With respect to Maricela Villalpando, the jury awarded $30,000.00 in past emotional distress damages, $10,000.00 in backpay and $250,000.00 in punitive damages on her hostile environment sexual harassment claim. In addition, Villalpando received an award of $5,000.00 for past emotional distress and $10,000.00 for punitive damages with respect to her claim of retaliation.
On November 16, 2005, Aramark filed a Motion To Contact Jurors (Doc. No. 64) in order to ascertain the jurors' opinions and impressions of the trial. The court granted this motion with respect to counsel for both parties on November 28, 2005 (Doc. No. 69). Aramark further filed a Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law And, Alternatively For New Trial And Remittitur Of All Amounts Awarded (Doc. No. 65) on November 18, 2005. Pursuant to the order of this court, although the defendant's motion was to be timely filed, the defendant was allotted additional time in which to file its brief, in order to account for the time that would be required to obtain a trial transcript from the court reporter. An Amended Motion was filed on November 21, 2005 (Doc. No. 68). On December 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Fee Application (Doc. No. 70). The defendant filed a resistance to the plaintiffs' Fee Application on December 30, 2005. This court reserved ruling on the plaintiffs' Fee Application until after the resolution of the post-trial motions and the conclusion of the case (Doc No. 75).
On January 10, 2006, the defendant filed a Supplemental Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Determine Juror Misconduct And For New Trial (Doc. No. 82). On February 2, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their resistance to the defendant's motion (Doc. No. 87). On this same date, the defendant filed its Memorandum For Judgment As A Matter Of Law, And, Alternatively For New Trial, And For Remittitur Of All Amounts Awarded (Doc. No. 86). On February 8, 2006, the defendant filed its reply to the plaintiffs' resistance to its Supplemental Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 89). On February 22, 2006, this court denied the defendant's Supplemental Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Determine Juror Misconduct And For New Trial, Lopez v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., 417 F.Supp.2d 1062 (N.D.Iowa 2006). Specifically, this court determined the defendant had failed to demonstrate it was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Thereafter, on March 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their brief in support of their resistance to the defendant's Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law, And, Alternatively For New Trial, And For Remittitur Of All Amounts Awarded (Doc. No. 93). The defendant filed its reply on March 14, 2006 (Doc. No. 100). As the parties have each filed briefs in support of their respective positions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goss v. Stream Global Servs., Inc.
...Id. (citing Hukkanen v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 101, 3 F.3d 281, 285 (8th Cir.1993)). Lopez v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., 426 F.Supp.2d 914, 941 (N.D. Iowa 2006) [footnote omitted]. Thus, Goss must adequately allege not only that he suffered from a hostile or abus......
-
Clay v. American
...his trailer up to twenty times over four years” did not constitute a constructive discharge). Contra Lopez v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc., 426 F.Supp.2d 914, 941–42 (N.D.Iowa 2006) (finding a reasonable jury could conclude claimant was constructively discharged where “[t]he conduct......
-
E.E.O.C. v. California Psychiatric Transitions
...implement its policy, through education of its employees and active enforcement of its mandate. See Lopez v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., 426 F.Supp.2d 914, 964 (N.D.Iowa 2006). Even if an employer adduces evidence showing it maintains on paper a strong non-discrimination policy ......
-
Bjornson v. Dave Smith Motors/Frontier Leasing, CV 04-0285-N-MHW.
...implement its policy, through education of its employees and active enforcement of its mandate. See Lopez v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., 426 F.Supp.2d 914, 964 (N.D.Iowa 2006). After Plaintiff handed over her journal over to management, she was never informed of the progress of ......