Mayes v. UPS, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 107252,ED 107252 |
| Citation | 593 S.W.3d 604 |
| Parties | Leopold MAYES, Appellant, v. UPS, INC., et al., Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
FOR APPELLANT, Douglas B. Ponder, Jaclyn M. Zimmerman, Ponder Zimmermann, LLC, 20 South Sarah Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
FOR RESPONDENT, Daniel K. O’Toole, Jeffery T. McPherson, Thomas B. Weaver, Paul L. Brusati, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, 7700 Forsyth, Suite 1800, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.
Leopold Mayes ("Mayes") sued UPS and three former coworkers for discrimination, defamation, and other charges related to Mayes’ termination. A jury found UPS liable for gender discrimination and punitive damages, assessing $350,000 in compensatory damages and $7,000,000 in punitive damages. The trial court accepted the jury’s verdict and directed verdicts on other claims in a judgment on June 19, 2018 ("June 19 Judgment"). UPS timely filed a motion for new trial ("Motion for New Trial") along with other after-trial motions. On October 12, 2018, the trial court entered a judgment ("October 12 Judgment") granting the Motion for New Trial and setting aside the verdict and June 19 Judgment.
Mayes claims three points of error in this appeal based on the trial court granting a new trial in the October 12 Judgment. First, Mayes claims the trial court misapplied the law which required remittitur when a new trial is granted based solely on a finding of Honest Mistake Excessiveness.1 Second, Mayes claims the trial court erred in setting aside the verdict and judgment on a counterclaim of Dominique Baker ("Baker"), one of the former coworkers who reported him to UPS management. The counterclaim ("Baker’s Retaliation Counterclaim") was not addressed in any of the after-trial motions. Mayes claims the trial court should not have set aside this portion of the judgment and verdict. And last, Mayes claims the above errors, when combined, show the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Motion for New Trial in the October 12 Judgment.
UPS responds the trial court had almost unlimited discretion to grant a new trial based on an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence finding, and the October 12 Judgment did not set aside the entire verdict and judgment as claimed by Mayes. UPS asserts the trial court did not find Honest Mistake Excessiveness, a requirement for Mayes’ first point relied on to succeed. Therefore, UPS argues the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Motion for New Trial.
We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the Motion for New Trial. Based on the language of the October 12 Judgment, the trial court may have set aside the entire judgment and verdict. If this was the intent of the trial court, it was in error. We affirm that portion of the October 12 Judgment granting UPS a new trial. We reverse the remainder of the October 12 Judgment, enter judgment on the claims not addressed in the Motion for New Trial, and remand with instructions for the circuit court to proceed in accordance with this opinion.
Mayes filed suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City against his former employer UPS and three UPS employees. Mayes filed a gender discrimination claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA") related to his termination and a hostile work environment claim against UPS. Mayes also filed claims for defamation, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against two female former coworkers, Baker and Ronda Gordon ("Gordon"), and one female former supervisor, Chelsea Funk ("Funk").
Mayes worked at UPS as a package handler from 2008 until his termination in December 2014. UPS terminated Mayes for violations of the UPS policies prohibiting sexually inappropriate conduct. Gordon and Baker reported Mayes for inappropriate behavior at work. Gordon accused Mayes of rubbing his body up against her body, using inappropriate language toward her, and asking her for sexual favors. Baker accused Mayes of saying sexually explicit things to her, asking for sexual favors, and trying to pull down her pants. Mayes was confronted by UPS management. He told management he had not been harassing the women, but he claimed they had been harassing him. UPS terminated Mayes and did not terminate the women.
Mayes claimed UPS discriminated against him because he—a male who claimed harassment—was terminated when his female coworkers were not. Funk and Baker filed counterclaims under the MHRA against Mayes claiming Mayes was retaliating against them for claiming harassment at work. Before trial, Mayes dismissed all claims against Funk. Funk dismissed her retaliation counterclaim against Mayes. Mayes also dismissed the hostile work environment claim against UPS and the tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Baker and Gordon. Mayes’ discrimination claim against UPS, his defamation claims against Gordon and Baker, and Baker’s Retaliation Counterclaim all went to trial.
At trial, Mayes called a former co-worker, Darelle Jones, who testified to overhearing Gordon and Baker planning to get Mayes fired. Jones allegedly reported this to UPS management. Jones also testified to hearing the female coworkers laughing and making jokes after Mayes was fired. Mayes also called Quentel Ruffin, a supervisor at UPS at the time of Mayes’ termination. Ruffin testified Gordon told her about the alleged harassment. Ruffin then spoke to Baker about the harassment upon Gordon’s request and informed their direct supervisors about the complaints. Ruffin also testified she never saw Mayes commit the acts alleged by Gordon and Baker.
Funk testified for Mayes. Funk was a manager at UPS and testified she never saw Mayes commit the inappropriate behavior alleged by the women in this case. She also claimed she had reported Gordon for being insubordinate and for acting inappropriately at work, but Gordon was not fired.
Mayes also called the manager, Mark Collins, who Gordon and Baker complained to and who fired Mayes. Collins said Mayes did report that Mayes denied harassing Baker and Gordon and claimed Baker and Gordon were harassing him. Collins did not believe Mayes and terminated him.
UPS then called Gordon and Baker. Gordon testified that Mayes would rub his body up against her body, called her "bitch," and asked her for sexual favors. Baker testified that Mayes would say sexually explicit things to her, ask for sexual favors, and he tried to pull down her pants.
At the close of evidence, the trial court directed verdicts for Gordon and Baker for the defamation claims because they were covered by the intra-corporate immunity defense. The two remaining claims—Mayes’ discrimination claim against UPS and Baker’s Retaliation Counterclaim—were submitted to the jury.
The jury returned a unanimous verdict against UPS and for Mayes on the gender discrimination claim. The jury also returned a unanimous verdict on the same form assessing compensatory damages in the amount of $350,000 and finding UPS liable for punitive damages. On a separate verdict form, the jury assessed a punitive damages award of $7,000,000 against UPS. On a third verdict form, the jury found for Mayes on Baker’s Retaliation Counterclaim. In the June 19 Judgment, the trial court accepted the jury’s verdicts on the discrimination claim and Baker’s Retaliation Counterclaim and entered judgment on the two directed verdicts not submitted to the jury.
On July 19, 2018, UPS timely filed six after-trial motions. These included: a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV Motion"); the Motion for New Trial; a motion for remittitur of compensatory damages; a motion for remittitur of punitive damages; a motion to reduce the unconstitutionally excessive punitive damages award; and a motion for a new trial on punitive damages. Mayes filed one after-trial motion seeking an amendment to the June 19 Judgment. Mayes moved for the addition of attorney’s fees and expenses.
No other after-trial motions were filed. Specifically, no after-trial motions were filed to set aside the directed verdict for Gordon and Baker on Mayes’ defamation charges. No after-trial motion was filed to set aside the jury verdict for Mayes on Baker’s Retaliation Counterclaim. In the after-trial motions, UPS did not argue to set aside any dispositions other than the verdict against UPS. Mayes did not argue to set aside any dispositions in his single after-trial motion.
The relief sought in the JNOV Motion was judgment for UPS on liability for gender discrimination and liability for punitive damages. UPS claimed Mayes failed to present sufficient evidence showing his gender was a contributing factor in his termination and failed to show there was a similarly situated female co-worker. UPS also claimed Mayes failed to present sufficient evidence showing evil motive or reckless indifference, and therefore, punitive damages were not warranted.
UPS sought a new trial for two reasons in its Motion for New Trial, pled as an alternative to the JNOV Motion. First, UPS claimed the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the verdict was shocking and excessive. UPS claimed:
The [trial court]’s discretion to grant a new trial on this basis is practically unlimited. As noted in the motion for JNOV, Plaintiff never presented evidence to support submission of a claim for gender discrimination, and he certainly did not make a submissible case for punitive damages. If JNOV is denied, the Court should grant a new trial to remedy the shocking and excessive verdict rendered in this case.
Second, UPS claimed trial errors involving erroneous admission and exclusion of evidence which, by themselves, warranted a new trial.
To support its first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veal v. Kelam
...to the evidence of injury and results from an ‘honest mistake’ by the jury in assessing damages." Mayes v. UPS, Inc. , 593 S.W.3d 604, 616-17 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (quoting Stewart v. Partamian , 465 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Mo. banc 2015) ). "Generally, when an excessive verdict is the result of an h......
- State v. Declue, ED 107634