Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Smith sued Defendants Rosebud Farmstand, Carlos Castaneda, and Roque Mendoza, alleging claims of sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, retaliation in violation of Title VII and § 1981, and gender violence in violation of the Illinois Gender Violence Act. On December 15, 2015, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on all claims, awarding him a combined $2,407,500 in compensatory and punitive damages. Now before the Court are Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding Plaintiff's federal discrimination claims [237, 242], and Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding Plaintiff's Illinois Gender Violence Act claims [238, 243]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions [237, 238, 242, 243] are denied.
Following the jury trial on liability, the Court held a two-day bench trial on the issue of equitable damages. Upon review of the parties' presentations at trial and their post-trial briefing, the Court awards Plaintiff $69,761.80 in back pay and $19,894.77 in prejudgment interest. All other requested forms of equitable relief are denied.
Also before the Court are several motions that arose during post-trial briefing. Upon review of the parties' respective arguments, Defendants' motion to supplement the Phase II record [272] is granted, Defendants' motion to amend their answer [274] is granted, and Plaintiff's motion to strike [288] is denied.
With these matters decided, final judgment will be entered in favor of Plaintiff. The parties have until October 14, 2016 to file any Rule 59 motions, responses are due December 1, 2016, and replies are due December 22, 2016.1
Defendant Rosebud Farmstand operates a grocery store on Chicago's south side, and Plaintiff Robert Smith worked as a butcher in Rosebud's meat department from 2003 to 2008.2 In 2011, Plaintiff sued Rosebud Farmstand, alleging that Rosebud employees sexually harassed him and discriminated against him on the basis of race throughout his employment. Plaintiff also alleged that Rosebud employees retaliated against him for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"), forcing him to quit his job. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants Carlos Castaneda and Roque Mendoza committed acts of gender violence against him. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages for these alleged wrongs, as well as equitable relief in the form of back pay, overtime pay, front pay, prejudgment interest, and tax compensation. The Court bifurcated the trial such that Phase I would be a jury trial covering liability on all claims as well as compensatory and punitive damages, and Phase II would be a bench trial covering equitable relief.
In December 2015, Plaintiff went to trial on four claims: sexual harassment in violation of Title VII against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, retaliation in violation of Title VII and § 1981 against Defendant Rosebud Farmstand, and gender violence in violation of the Illinois Gender Violence Act ("IGVA") against Defendants Castaneda and Mendoza. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on all counts, awarding a total of $2,407,500.00 in compensatory and punitive damages, broken down as follows:
At the close of Plaintiff's case in chief, Defendants filed motions for judgment as a matter of law on all claims. [237, 238.] Defendants renewed those motions before the case was submitted to the jury. [242, 243.] The Court deferred setting a briefing schedule on Defendants' motions until the conclusion of Phase II.
In April 2016, the Court held a two-day bench trial on Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief and Defendants' affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. Afterward, the Court set a briefing schedule that covered all post-trial briefing, including Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and the parties' Phase II proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law [see 270]. All motions are now fully briefed.
II. Judgment as a Matter of Law On a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, a court must determine whether the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is sufficient to support the verdict. Massey v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Illinois, 226 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Hall v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., 298 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 2002). A jury verdict is not to be set aside if, viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, there is any reasonable basis to support the verdict. Kapelanski v. Johnson, 390 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). In other words, the test is whether "no rational juror could have found for the prevailing party." Turner v. Miller, 301 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Emmel v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago, 95 F.3d 627, 630 (7th Cir. 1996) (the court is limited to assessing whether no rational jury could have found for the plaintiff).
A. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Before addressing Defendants' Rule 50 motions, the Court notes that Plaintiff has moved to strike Defendants' reply briefs in support of their motions, arguing that Defendants improperly included testimonial excerpts in those briefs that were not included in Defendants' opening briefs. [See 288.] Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike from Defendants' reply briefs all references to evidence that was not including in Defendants' opening briefs, or allow Plaintiff leave to file a surreply. Plaintiff's motion [288] is denied.
Parties are prohibited from raising arguments for the first time in a reply brief, see Richardson v. United States, 379 F.3d 485, 487 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004), and to the extent that Defendants have done so, the Court will ignore those arguments. But Plaintiff's objection relates to Defendants' inclusion of new transcript citations, not new arguments. And as Defendantsrightly note, the trial transcript was not available when Defendants filed their opening briefs, which was during the Phase I trial in December 2015. The trial transcript became available to both parties on May 20, 2016—more than a month before Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law were due. Plaintiff did not obtain copies of the trial transcript or include citations to the trial transcript in his response. By contrast, Defendants did obtain copies of the trial transcripts and, as expected, did include citations to the trial transcripts in their reply briefs, buttressing the arguments that they raised in their opening briefs. Not only are Defendants' actions appropriate, they are expected. But regardless of whether either party cited specific excerpts from the trial transcript, the Court is entitled to refer to that transcript in ruling on the parties' post-trial motions, meaning that the entire transcript is fair game. See Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 827, 834 & n.6 (7th Cir. 1989) (district court's decision to rule on post-trial motions "without the benefit of a trial transcript" was "surprising[]"); LaFollette v. Savage, 63 F.3d 540, 545 (7th Cir. 1995) (requiring a full trial transcript in order to properly rule on the merits of a motion for judgment as a matter of law). And upon review of the hundreds of pages in the parties' post-trial briefing, the Court concludes that a surreply from Plaintiff is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Thus, Plaintiff's motion [288] is denied, and the Court will rule on Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law based on the parties' current submissions.
B. Federal Discrimination Claims
1. Sexual Harassment in Violation of Title VII Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Rosebud violated Title VII by subjecting him to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination in employment: "It shall be an unlawful employment practicefor an employer * * * to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The purpose of this provision as it relates to discrimination on the basis of sex is to prevent "'disparate treatment of men and women in employment,'" regardless of its form. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 78 (1998) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986)). Therefore, whenever "'the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.'" Id. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)).
To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment, an employee must establish that (1) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on his sex; (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe...
