Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06156/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06156-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sexual Harassment)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

HOLLY SELLS PLAINTIFF

V. Civil No. 04-6156

MR. SPEEDY CAR CARE CENTER,

JOHN HUFFER, MIKE PORTER,

PORJOHN ENTERPRISES, LLC a/k/a

POR JOHN ENTERPRISES, LLC DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

On this 3 day of November 2005 there comes on for rd

consideration Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter

of Law, or in the Alternative, for a New Trial or Remittitur and

memorandum in support (Doc. #61 & 63) as well as Plaintiff’s

response (Docs. 69-70), Plaintiff’s Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend the

Findings of the Court in its Apportionment of Damages (Docs. 62 &

64), Defendants’ Response (Doc. 68) and Plaintiff’s reply (Doc.

112). Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Stay of

Execution on Judgment and Motion to Rescind all Writs of

Garnishment (Doc. 122), Plaintiff’s Response and Brief in Support

(Docs. 126-27) and Defendants’ Reply (Docs. 131-32). 

For the reasons set forth within this memorandum, Defendants’

Motion (Doc. 61) should be and hereby is DENIED, Plaintiff’s Motion

(Doc. 62) is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 122) is

DENIED.

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 1

 (b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial; Alternative

Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not

grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the

close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have

-2-

Background. 

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants claiming sexual

harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the

Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The case proceeded to jury trial on

September 7, 2005 through September 9, 2005. At the close of

Plaintiff’s case, Defendants moved for a directed verdict,

contending that there was insufficient evidence to support a

verdict with regard to any of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants

renewed their motion at the conclusion of all of the evidence. The

motion was denied each time, and both the sexual harassment and

retaliation claims were submitted to the jury by interrogatories.

The jury reached a verdict in favor of Plaintiff with regard

to both claims. The jury awarded Plaintiff $50,000 in compensatory

damages, $60,000 in lost wages and fringe benefits and $150,000 in

punitive damages. The Court further awarded Plaintiff $100,000 in

front pay, $58,097.50 in attorneys’ fees and $4,100.05 in costs.

Judgment was entered on September 28, 2005 in accordance with this

verdict. 

Defendants request the Court to enter judgment as a matter of

law in accordance with Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. In the alternative, Defendants move for a new trial 1

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later

deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant

may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by

filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of

judgment–and may alternatively request a new trial or join a

motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed

motion, the court may:

(1) if a verdict was returned:

 (A) allow the judgment to stand,

 (B) order a new trial, or

 (C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law...

(c) Granting Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law;

Conditional Rulings; New Trial Motion. 

(1) If the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of

law is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a

new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted

if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall

specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for a

new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus

conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the

finality of the judgment. In case the motion for a new trial

has been conditionally granted and the judgment is reversed on

appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court

has otherwise ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has

been conditionally denied, the appellee on appeal may assert

error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on

appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the

order of the appellate court.

FED.R.CIV.P., Rule 50.

-3-

under Rule 59(a)(1) or remittitur.

Defendants’ Motion.

In ruling upon Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of

law, the Court is required to view the evidence most favorably to

the party that prevailed before the jury. Askew v. Millerd, 191

F.3d 953, 957 (8 Cir. 1999). All direct factual conflicts must th

then be resolved in favor of Plaintiff. Id. Furthermore, the

Court must assume as true all facts supporting Plaintiff which the

evidence tended to prove. Id. Finally, the Court must give

Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and deny the

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

motion if the evidence so viewed would allow reasonable jurors to

differ as to the conclusions that could be drawn. Id. Judgment as

a matter of law is only proper when no reasonable juror could have

found for the nonmoving party due to a complete absence of

probative facts to support the conclusion reached. Foster v. Time

Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., 250 F.3d 1189, 1194 (2001)

citing Blackmon v. Pinkerton Sec. & Investigative Servs., 182 F.3d

629, 635 (8 Cir. 1999). Defendants also move in the alternative th

for a new trial. A new trial is only appropriate if the verdict

was against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a

miscarriage of justice. Foster, 250 F.3d at 1197 (8 Cir. 2001) th

citing Ogden v. Wax Works, Inc., 214 F.3d 999, 1010 (8 Cir. 2000). th

Defendants contend that there was insufficient evidence to

submit the claim of personal liability of John Huffer and Mike

Porter to the jury as they are shielded from personal liability as

members of a limited liability company. This argument was the

subject of two summary judgment motions filed by Defendants prior

to trial and denied by the Court. Defendants continued to argue at

trial that Huffer and Porter could not be liable to Plaintiff as

PorJohn Enterprises, LLC was Plaintiff’s employer. 

Defendants were allowed to present testimony and evidence

regarding this issue, and the Court found that whether Huffer and

Porter were Plaintiff’s employers was a question for the jury to

decide. Defendants are incorrect in their contention that

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

Plaintiff sought to hold Huffer and Porter liable as supervisors.

Throughout the litigation, Plaintiff has only sought to hold Huffer

and Porter liable as partners doing business as Mr. Speedy Car Care

Center. The testimony by Plaintiff was sufficient to establish

that she was employed by Mr. Speedy Car Care Center which was owned

by Huffer and Porter. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Porter is the

subject of a hearing before this Court as Defendants asserted

throughout the litigation that PorJohn Enterprises, LLC was

authorized to do business as Mr. Speedy Car Care Center when, in

fact, it was not. Further, Defendants referred to Plaintiff’s

employer as Mr. Speedy Car Care Center in proceedings before the

EEOC and the Employment Security Division prior to the commencement

of this lawsuit. 

Defendants next contend there was insufficient evidence to

submit Plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment and retaliation to

the jury. There was a plethora of testimony that Huffer routinely

asked Plaintiff to go out with him and that she declined each time.

Plaintiff testified that Huffer left messages on her cellular phone

saying that he missed her and wanted her to come to his house among

other things. Plaintiff also testified that Huffer grabbed her

breasts, buttocks and private areas on numerous occasions. The

Court also heard evidence that Huffer confronted Plaintiff for

reporting the harassment to Porter and kept her in a locked car for

some period of time. Further, Porter attempted to force Plaintiff

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

to sign a memo stating that the incidents between Huffer and

herself were consensual and indicated if Plaintiff did not sign the

memo she would be terminated.

Defendants further contend the Court erred by refusing to

allow evidence of Plaintiff’s suggestive sexual behavior, dress and

sexual relationships with others; and a letter written by Grady

Bean’s attorney. Defendants also contend the court erred by

admitted the EEOC determination and the Employment Security

Division determination. These issues were fully briefed by both

parties and argued to the Court. The Court, having fully

reconsidered its rulings, finds its previous rulings to be in

accordance with the law. 

Defendants contend that the Court erred in submitting the

issue of punitive damages to the jury, that the damages verdict was

contrary to the statutory caps, the lost wages and fringe benefits

verdict was contrary to the legal measure of damages, the evidence

supported reinstatement rather than front pay, and the front pay

award was contrary to the legal measure of damages. Defendants

also contend that the Court should order a remittitur of the

damages awards. All of these issues have been considered by the

Court and discussed in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion of September

28, 2005. The Court again considers these same issues and finds

the damages awards to be appropriate.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

and giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences, there was

sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find in favor of

Plaintiff. There was sufficient testimony provided by Plaintiff

and others for the jury to find Plaintiff was sexually harassed by

John Huffer and retaliated against by Defendants. As such, the

verdict does not amount to a miscarriage of justice, and a new

trial would be improper. Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Rule 52(b) Motion.

Plaintiff requests the Court to amend its allocations of

damages set forth in the Memorandum Opinion dated September 28,

2005. As the Court has discretion to allocate the damages to

preserve a jury award, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion

should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, to preserve that

award, the Court finds that its Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 58) is

amended as follows: 

Compensatory damages:

Title VII sexual harassment: $25,000

ACRA sexual harassment: $0

ACRA retaliation: $25,000

Title VII retaliation: $0

Total: $50,000

Punitive Damages:

Title VII claims: $0

ACRA sexual harassment: $0

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

ACRA retaliation: $150,000

Total: $150,000

The remainder of the Memorandum Opinion remains unchanged to

include the Court’s awards of front pay, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Writs of Garnishment.

On November 1, 2005, Defendants moved for a stay of execution

of judgment and to rescind all writs of garnishment as their posttrial motions were still pending before the Court. As Defendants’

outstanding motions are DENIED pursuant to this Order, Defendants’

Motion for Stay of Execution on Judgment and Motion to Rescind all

Writs of Garnishment is DENIED. Should Defendants file a notice of

appeal they may seek a stay pursuant Rule 62(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Conclusion & Order. 

The Court finds that the evidence presented at trial was

sufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict for Plaintiff on

her sexual harassment and retaliation claims. Accordingly,

Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the

alternative, for a new trial or remittitur is DENIED. Further,

Plaintiff’s Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend is GRANTED and Defendants’

Motion for Stay of Execution is DENIED.

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 6:04-cv-06156-RTD Document 133 Filed 11/03/05 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>