Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., ANHEUSER-BUSC

• Decision Date: 04 November 1987
• Docket Number: INC,ANHEUSER-BUSC,No. 87-1021,87-1021
• Parties: 44 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1617, 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,428, 56 USLW 2194, 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321 Melvin K. ROWLETT, Sr., Plaintiff, Appellee, v., Defendant, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 194

832 F.2d 194

44 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1617,

44 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,428, 56 USLW 2194,

9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321

Melvin K. ROWLETT, Sr., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., Defendant, Appellant.

No. 87-1021.

United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit.

Argued May 26, 1987.

Decided Sept. 30, 1987.

As Amended Nov. 4, 1987.

Alan D. Rose with whom Charles R. Parrott, Jennifer R. Seton and Nutter, McClennen & Fish, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for defendant, appellant.

Martin L. Gross with whom Eleanor H. Holmes, Edward M. Kaplan and Sulloway Hollis & Soden, Concord, N.H., were on brief, for plaintiff, appellee.

Before BREYER and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges, and RE, ^* Judge.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a case simultaneously tried to a jury under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and to a judge under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. (Title VII). The appeal raises issues relating to the statute of limitations applicable to Sec. 1981 claims, the scope of judicial discretion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(b), the quantum of proof necessary to establish intentional racial discrimination, and the damages that are allowable under Sec. 1981. We affirm in part and remand for entry of a new judgment.

Background

Melvin Rowlett alleged that Anheuser-Busch, Inc. discriminated against him on the basis of race in three ways: by denying him training that white coworkers received, by denying him pay raises equivalent to those of white coworkers, and, ultimately, by discharging him. While Rowlett freely conceded that there were no overt acts of racial discrimination, he contended that the facts demonstrated a subtle, but equally damaging, racial bias underlying Anheuser-Busch's actions. The jury found for Rowlett on all three claims. In reviewing the facts presented at trial to support these claims, we, of course, examine them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Chedd-Angier Prod. Co. v. Omni Publications Int'l, Ltd., 756 F.2d 930, 934 (1st Cir.1985).

In 1970 Anheuser-Busch hired Rowlett as an hourly employee in the quality control lab at its Merrimack, New Hampshire, brewing facility. The quality control lab has a number of work stations where employees test beer as brewed and as packaged to ensure that the product consistently meets Anheuser-Busch's quality standards. Hourly employees generally rotate through these work stations and so become familiar with most or all of the tasks performed in the lab. But Rowlett, who was the only black hourly employee in the lab, did not rotate through the work stations to the extent of his white coworkers. Thus, he was not as familiar with all the tasks of the lab.

In 1975 Rowlett's supervisor, Eduardo Campos, promoted Rowlett to become one of the three shift foremen who supervise the work of the hourly employees in the quality control lab. The Anheuser-Busch job description for the position states that foremen must have "a thorough knowledge of brewing and packaging lab procedures and techniques." Rowlett informed Campos that he had not rotated through all the stations and, thus, did not have a thorough knowledge; he requested training to remedy his deficiencies.

Campos, who had responsibility for training Rowlett, did not do so in 1975. Yet, on Rowlett's 1975 evaluation Campos wrote "further training in planning, analytical techniques and concepts in both quality control and managerial skills is needed to increase his performance." Rowlett requested such further training several times in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980. He did not receive any training from Campos until 1981, after he had enlisted the support of the Anheuser-Busch ombudsman and the equal opportunity employment officer in Anheuser-Busch's St. Louis, Missouri, headquarters.

Notwithstanding Campos' failure to train Rowlett, the annual evaluations Campos prepared for Rowlett consistently mentioned Rowlett's need for training. ¹ Anheuser-Busch personnel policy requires an employee's supervisor to remedy a training problem "as immediately as practicable." White employees hired as foremen who had not worked in the quality control lab as hourlies and who therefore, like Rowlett, did not have a "thorough knowledge of brewing and packaging lab procedures and techniques," received formal training in the operations of the various work stations. White employees, both senior and junior to Rowlett, received training in areas in which none of them had worked as hourlies and in which he had requested to be trained in, yet was not trained. When Rowlett finally received the training he requested, in the spring of 1981, the training was for a total of only six hours and was superficial in nature.

Beginning in 1978 Rowlett received smaller pay raises than the other foremen, which Anheuser-Busch attributed to poor evaluations. His evaluations stressed both the need to improve job skills and an absenteeism problem. Rowlett had a relatively high absenteeism rate as compared to other foremen. ² He attributed his absenteeism to his chronic bronchitis, occasional accidents and job related stress. The stress came, in part at least, from the pressure of having to carry out a job without the necessary training. In 1981 the evaluations resulted in Rowlett being placed on probation for excessive absenteeism.

In March 1981, Rowlett filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Commission of Human Rights alleging that Anheuser-Busch had discriminated against him on the basis of race in training and pay raises and in placing him on probation. Rowlett's fiance (and later wife), Janet Sylvia, had previously filed a claim with the Human Rights Commission, alleging that she had been fired from her hourly position at Anheuser-Busch because of sex discrimination by her foreman, Frank Achee. During a hearing on her case in the fall of 1981, an hourly employee under Rowlett's supervision, Marie Toms, testified that Rowlett had asked to testify on Sylvia's behalf. Ronald Rose, the plant's industrial relations manager, who was present at the hearing on behalf of Anheuser-Busch, was angered to learn, as he put it, that Rowlett had "used [his] position as supervisor to promote an action detrimental to [his] employer, Anheuser-Busch."

After the hearing Rose interviewed Marie Toms and two other hourly employees who had discussed the case with Rowlett. At trial one of the employees testified that Rose denied her request to have a union steward present at the interview and that he began in an intimidating fashion, by asking whether she liked working at Anheuser-Busch and whether it was one of the better jobs in the Merrimack area. After each interview Rose prepared a short affidavit, which extracted from the interview only comments that supported his conclusion that Rowlett had been disloyal, and then directed the employee to sign it. Rose did not contact Rowlett nor attempt to learn his explanation of the events surrounding the Human Rights hearing. On December 4, 1981, without consulting Rowlett's immediate supervisor, Rose terminated Rowlett, for "disloyalty."

Rowlett subsequently filed a second charge with the Human Rights Commission, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for having filed his previous discrimination claim. On February 1, 1983, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Right to Sue letter on the training and pay raise claim. Rowlett then filed this suit on May 3, 1983, alleging a violation of Title VII in his training and pay raises. On November 28, 1983, Rowlett received an EEOC Right to Sue letter on the termination claim and subsequently amended his complaint on November 30, 1983, adding a Title VII termination claim and a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 discrimination claim.

The Sec. 1981 claim was tried before a jury, while simultaneously, the Title VII claim was tried before a judge. The jury found Anheuser-Busch liable for discrimination under Sec. 1981 and awarded Rowlett $299,000 in compensatory and $3 million in punitive damages. The district court issued an opinion finding Anheuser-Busch liable under Title VII as well, but awarding no additional damages. Anheuser-Busch appealed.

Anheuser-Busch raises a panoply of issues in this appeal. To begin with the company claims that Rowlett's Sec. 1981 claim is barred by the statute of limitations and that the district court abused its discretion in granting Rowlett a jury trial after he had waived a jury through inaction. On the merits, Anheuser-Busch argues that the instructions on intentional discrimination were confusing and incorrect, that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that both the punitive and the compensatory damage awards are excessive.

I. Statute of Limitations

Anheuser-Busch argued below that the appropriate statute of limitations for Sec. 1981 actions in New Hampshire was the six-month period applicable to filing administrative discrimination claims with the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission. N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. ch. 354-A:9 (1983). Rowlett argued that the appropriate statute of limitations was the six-year period applicable to personal injury claims. N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. ch. 508:4 (1983). The district court agreed with Anheuser-Busch that the six month period for administrative complaints was applicable, but ruled for Rowlett on the basis that his complaint with the Human Rights Commission tolled the statute of limitations on his Sec. 1981 claim.

Several months after the district court's denial of Anheuser-Busch's motion to dismiss, but before trial, the Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the appropriate statute of limitations period for Sec. 1983 actions ³ was the state law limitation for personal injury claims, as Rowlett had claimed. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 278-79, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1948-49, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). The Court had held previously that state law statutes of limitations applicable to administrative procedures, like that the district court relied on below, were not appropriate for Sec. 1981...