Tyler v. BD. OF ED. OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY, ETC.

• Decision Date: 07 August 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 80-279.
• Citation: 519 F. Supp. 834
• Parties: Paulette P. TYLER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the NEW CASTLE COUNTY VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

519 F. Supp. 834

Paulette P. TYLER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the NEW CASTLE COUNTY VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 80-279.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

August 7, 1981.

Thomas Stephen Neuberger, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.

Robert D. Graham of Bayard, Brill & Handelman, Wilmington, Del., for defendant.

OPINION

CALEB M. WRIGHT, Senior District Judge.

Following entry of judgment for plaintiff pursuant to a jury verdict, defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial or amendment of the judgment. Plaintiff in turn filed post-trial motions for equitable relief pursuant to a Title VII claim and for award of attorneys' fees and costs. For the reasons set out hereinafter, the Court declines to overturn the jury's verdict or order a new trial. However, in view of recent legal developments, the Court amends the judgment to strike the award of punitive damages. Further, the Court grants plaintiff's motion for equitable relief and for attorneys' fees and costs.

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint in June, 1980, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, in connection with plaintiff's unsuccessful application for the position of Student Activity Coordinator at Howard Career Center. The complaint alleged that a male less qualified than plaintiff was selected for the position, and that plaintiff was denied the position because of her sex. The complaint was subsequently amended to allege that plaintiff was deprived of her Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process in the hiring process.

The case came to trial in February, 1981. At the conclusion of three days of testimony, the Court instructed the jury as to the intentional sex discrimination and procedural due process claims. Plaintiff sought punitive as well as compensatory damages, and the Court gave instructions concerning both. See Dkt. 63, D-16-19. In response to special interrogatories, see Dkt. 52, the jury found that defendant violated plaintiff's right to procedural due process and her right to equal protection of the laws. The jury awarded plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of her lost wages, $7,430, and punitive damages in excess of $57,000.

B. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict, New Trial, or Amendment of the Judgment

Defendant made a timely motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial or amendment of the judgment. In order for the Court to grant a motion for judgment n. o. v., the evidence must be such that reasonable persons could not have reached the verdict returned by the jury. See, e. g., Ambrose v. Wheatly, 321 F.Supp. 1220, 1222 (D.Del.1971). The Court has broader discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial. It can, for example, set aside a verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence, or that it is excessive. See 6A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 59.08, at 59-102 (2d ed. 1948).

Though the evidence offered at trial was far from clear and convincing, the Court holds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that defendant intentionally discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex. The parties stipulated that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. Defendant's defense was that plaintiff was not hired because she was less qualified than the successful male applicant. Plaintiff therefore had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defense was simply a pretext for sex discrimination.

There is evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably infer that a less qualified male was selected over plaintiff because of sex. The jury might have inferred from the testimony that John Pickett, the Howard Career Center principal, favored Joseph Facciolo, Howard's football coach, for the Student Activity Coordinator position and sought indirectly to influence the committee in Facciolo's favor. Moreover, the jury could have found that Leon Holden, a member of the three-person interview committee, asked plaintiff certain questions in the interview which suggested that he was biased against female candidates. See Dkt. 61, B-175; id. B-11. Though plaintiff was ranked third among four candidates by all members of the interview committee, the jury might reasonably have concluded that Holden's questions influenced the other committee members to give plaintiff a low ranking. Because a finding of intentional discrimination must often be based on circumstantial evidence, the Court is reluctant to overturn the jury's decision where there is some evidence that reasonably supports its finding. Therefore, in view of the evidence reviewed above, the Court declines to disturb the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff on the claim of sex discrimination.

The crux of the procedural due process claim was whether defendant failed to follow its own procedures in filling the position of Student Activity Coordination at Howard, and if so, whether plaintiff was injured as a result. The jury could reasonably have found, on the basis of the testimony of Pickett and Donald James, the district director of guidance, that the interview committee departed from customary hiring procedures, such as use of a written job description and standard questions.

Whether the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff would have been selected for the position had "proper" procedures been followed is a more difficult question. At trial, plaintiff strongly urged that she was clearly more qualified for the position than the male selected; that the interview committee selected Facciolo in part because it was mistakenly informed as to the responsibilities connected with the position; and that the committee's mistake as to job responsibilities was in part a result of the fact that there was no written job description for the position. The school district decided on August 15, 1979 to move job placement responsibilities to the district level, and remove those duties from Student Activity Coordinators at the school level. See Dkt. 60, A-42. It was not until twelve days later, on August 27, 1979 that the interview committee selected Facciolo for the Student Activity Coordinator position at Howard, on the assumption that his duties would include job placement. See PX-21. The jury might reasonably have inferred that a written job description would have corrected the committee members' erroneous understanding of the new Student Activity Coordinator's responsibilities, and would have led them to select plaintiff for the job, in view of her extensive background in student activities. Therefore, the Court will not overturn the jury's finding of a violation of procedural due process, and of damages resulting therefrom.

Turning to the issue of damages, defendant contends that plaintiff should not receive lost wages for extra-duty paid positions which the jury awarded as compensatory damages. Defendant argues that, even had she been selected as Student Activity Coordinator, there was no guarantee she would have been selected for the extra-duty positions under the open interview procedure adopted by defendant in 1979. See Dkt. 62, C-69. However, back pay for those positions could reasonably be included in an award of compensatory damages, in light of Pickett's testimony that plaintiff would have held those positions had she been at Howard as Student Activity Coordinator. See Dkt. 61, B-71.

In connection with the award of punitive damages, defendant has called to the Court's attention a recent decision of the Supreme Court, City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). In the Newport case, the Court squarely addressed, for the first time, the question whether municipalities are liable for punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and held that they are not. Id. at ___-___, 101 S.Ct. at 2759-2761. In this Court's view, school districts such...