Sanders v. Lee Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1
| Decision Date | 28 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–3240.,10–3240. |
| Citation | 95 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44425,114 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 705,669 F.3d 888 |
| Parties | Sharon Y. SANDERS, Appellant, v. LEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1; Lee County Arkansas Board of Education; Elizabeth Johnson, Individually & as President and Member of the Board of Education of Lee County, Arkansas; Milton Hall, Individually & as Member of the Board of Education of Lee County, Arkansas; Victoria Perry, Individually & as Member of the Board of Education of Lee County, Arkansas; Pearlethe Collins, Individually & as Member of Board of Education of Lee County, Arkansas, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael David Snell, argued, Marion, AR, for appellant.
Terrence Cain, argued and on the brief, John Winfred Walker, Sr., on the brief, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.
Before BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH CAMP,1 District Judge.BYE, Circuit Judge.
An Arkansas jury found in favor of Sharon Sanders on her Title VII claims of race discrimination and constructive discharge against the Lee County School District No. 1 and individual members of the County's Board of Education. The jury awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages on the race discrimination claim, $60,825 in wages and fringe benefits on the constructive discharge claim, and a total of $8,000 in punitive damages against three individual defendants. Following trial, the district court granted the defendants' motion to set aside the constructive discharge and punitive damage verdicts, and awarded a fraction of the attorney fees requested by Sanders on her race discrimination claim. Sanders filed a timely appeal contending the district court erred in vacating the constructive discharge claim and the punitive damage award, and abused its discretion in reducing her request for attorney fees. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Sharon Sanders, a Caucasian woman, worked as the finance coordinator for the Lee County School District No. 1 (the School District) from August 2000 until November 20, 2007.2 The School District employees were primarily African American. In September 2007, Sanders was one of only two Caucasian employees working for the School District in administrative positions. The other Caucasian employee in an administrative position was Wayne Thompson, the school superintendent.
As the finance coordinator, Sanders's duties included presenting financial reports to the Board of Education (the Board) at its monthly meetings. There was tension between Sanders and Elizabeth Johnson, one of the African American members of the Board. Johnson did not like the format of the financial reports Sanders presented at the monthly school board meetings, among other things.
Prior to September 25, 2007, the Board consisted of four Caucasian members and three African American members. On September 25, 2007, the racial majority of the Board shifted when an African American candidate defeated one of the Board's Caucasian members in an election. Within two months of the election, the four African American members of the Board (Elizabeth Johnson, Milton Hall, Victoria Perry, and Pearlethe Collins, the four individual defendants in this case), over the objection of the three Caucasian members, summarily reassigned the only two Caucasian employees in the school district administration, school superintendent Thompson and finance coordinator Sanders, to diminished positions. The Board removed Thompson as superintendent and named Clyde Noel, an African American, as the interim superintendent. Thompson was reassigned to the position of Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance and Transportation. In addition, the Board removed Sanders as the finance coordinator and gave some of her financial duties to an African American employee, Doris Lewellen. Sanders was reassigned to the position of food services assistant. The Board made the two reassignments without referring to the employee manuals, and without consulting the school superintendent or legal counsel regarding the propriety of the reassignments.
Within five months of reassigning the only two Caucasian employees in the school district administration, the four members of the Board's African American majority moved to eliminate the position of food services assistant, the position to which Sanders had been reassigned. The motion failed only after Collins withdrew her second for the motion.
After losing her job as finance coordinator and being reassigned to a food services assistant position, Sanders took sick leave. While on sick leave, Sanders repeatedly asked the Board to provide her with a job description defining the duties of her new position, and a new contract. For several months, the Board did not provide Sanders with a new contract or a job description defining the duties of her new position. Sanders remained on sick leave from November 2007 through August 2008.
On August 12, 2008, the school superintendent sent a letter to Sanders indicating he was recommending to the Board that her employment with the school be terminated due to the number of days she had been on sick leave. Sanders responded to the letter by providing the superintendent with a doctor's statement releasing her to return to work as of September 2, 2008. Eight days after receiving the letter advising her of her pending termination, Sanders received another letter indicating a new contract for the food service assistant position was waiting for her upon her return to school. Sanders still was not provided a copy of the actual contract. Nor did Sanders receive a copy of a job description outlining her new duties.
On September 2, 2008, Sanders submitted a letter of resignation to the school superintendent. A little over a month later, she filed this lawsuit against the Board and the individual African American members of the Board alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e–17. The hostile work environment claim was dismissed following a motion for summary judgment, but the race discrimination and constructive discharge claims proceeded to trial. The district court also allowed a claim of punitive damages to go to the jury.
At trial, Sanders presented the evidence summarized above. The defendants presented evidence to show Sanders was removed from her position as finance coordinator because she was insubordinate and failed to answer questions posed by the Board during its meetings. The jury rejected the Board's evidence and found Sanders had suffered an adverse employment action when she was demoted from finance coordinator to food services assistant, and the adverse employment action was based on race. The jury awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages for the emotional distress and anguish arising from the race discrimination claim. The jury also determined Sanders had been constructively discharged on the basis of race, and awarded her $60,825 for lost wages and benefits. Finally, the jury found Sanders was entitled to $5,000 in punitive damages against individual school board member Elizabeth Johnson, $2,500 in punitive damages against individual school board member Milton Hall, and $500 in punitive damages against individual school board member Victoria Perry. Sanders's proof on the claims for punitive damages focused on the evidence indicating the Board never consulted with the school superintendent or legal counsel before demoting the only Caucasian employees in the school district's administration, nor did the Board review the employee manuals before making the reassignments.
After the trial, the Board and its individual member defendants filed a motion pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside all of the jury's verdicts. The district court granted the Rule 50 motion on the constructive discharge and punitive damage awards, but left intact the race discrimination claim and the jury's award of $10,000 in compensatory damages.
Sanders filed a motion for an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party pursuant to the provisions of Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k)) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Sanders's attorney indicated he had worked 207 hours on the case and asked for an hourly rate of $200, plus reasonable expenses of approximately $4,000, for a total request of $46,735.82. The motion for fees also revealed Sanders had signed a one-third contingency fee agreement with her attorney.
The Board opposed the motion for fees, asking the district court to reduce the amount of fees requested due to Sanders's limited success, relying upon the district court's grant of summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim and post-trial vacation of the constructive discharge claim and punitive damage awards. The Board suggested the total amount of hours worked on the summary judgment be reduced by half because of the limited success of the summary judgment motion. The Board also sought an overall reduction in the $200 hourly rate, suggesting $175 fee was more appropriate for lawyers with fifteen or more years of experience, and suggesting plaintiff counsel's personal regular rate was $100 per hour. Ultimately, the Board suggested the district court use the lodestar method to award fees for 168 hours of work at $100 per hour to reflect a more reasonable rate and the limited success Sanders achieved.
Rather than analyze the fee request under the lodestar method, the district court referred to the contingent fee agreement Sanders had reached with her attorney. The district court considered the limited success Sanders achieved at trial, including the fact that the jury's awards for constructive discharge and punitive damages had been vacated, leaving only the $10,000 race discrimination award intact. The district court then noted the fee request made by Sanders was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goss v. Stream Global Servs., Inc.
..."'employer deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing her to quit.'" Sanders v. Lee County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 669 F.3d 888, 893 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d 410, 418 (8th Cir.2010)). In other words, if "'an ......
-
Benner v. St. Paul Pub. Sch.
...that the employer could have reasonably foreseen that the employee would quit as a result of its actions.’ " Sanders v. Lee Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 669 F.3d 888, 893 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fercello v. Cty. of Ramsey , 612 F.3d 1069, 1083 (8th Cir. 2010) ). "The employer can render working......
-
Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC
...Circuit found no error in submitting the constructive discharge claim to the jury. Id. at 575 ; see also ≠ Sanders v. Lee Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 669 F.3d 888, 894 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding discriminatory constructive discharge claim supported when employee reasonably believed no chance for ......
-
Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc.
...deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing her to quit.’ ” Sanders v. Lee County School District No. 1, 669 F.3d 888, 893 (8th Cir.2012) (quoting Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d 410, 418 (8th Cir.2010)). In other words, if “ ‘an emplo......