Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02467/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02467-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kimberly N. Sorkilmo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Qwest Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-2467-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter

of Law or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial or Remittitur of Damages (Doc. # 180).

Plaintiff responded and Defendant replied. This Court held a jury trial in this matter and the

jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on her claim of hostile work environment by

sexual harassment as follows: $600,000 compensatory damages; $200,750 back pay

damages; and $2,100,000 punitive damages. Defendant asserts a renewed motion for

judgment as a matter of law and moves for a new trial. 

The Court begins with Defendant’s argument that the compensatory and punitive

damages award must be reduced because they exceed the cap imposed by Title VII.

Defendant is correct on this point and therefore the compensatory damages award will be

reduced to $300,000 and the punitive damages award reduced to zero. Because punitive

damages are reduced to zero, the Court need not address Defendant’s argument that it did not

act with the malice or reckless indifference necessary to be liable for punitive damages.

Case 2:02-cv-02467-NVW Document 186 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Judgment as a Matter of Law

Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when the evidence, read in the light

most favorable to the non-moving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion as to the

verdict. Lawson v. Umatilla County, 139 F.3d 690, 692 (9th Cir. 1998). A jury verdict “must

be affirmed if substantial evidence supports the verdict.” Poppell v. San Diego, 149 F.3d

951, 962 (9th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as reasonable minds

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if it is possible to draw two

inconsistent conclusions from the evidence.” Id. (internal quotations omitted.)

 Defendant claims that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s sexual

harassment for the following reasons: 1) Plaintiff was not subjected to conduct of a sexual

nature; 2) the undisputed evidence shows that Avner’s conduct was not unwelcome; and 3)

Avner’s conduct was insufficient as a matter of law to create a sexually abusive or hostile

working environment. The Court finds that there is substantial evidence in the trial record

to support a finding of liability against Defendant. Defendant spends many pages of its brief

arguing why Mr. Avner’s conduct could have been interpreted differently. For example,

Defendant argues that the voicemail messages left by Mr. Avner “at most, consisted of

ambiguous statements made in a rambling fashion by one friend to another.” Defendant

further argues that Plaintiff maintained a friendly relationship with Mr. Avner and therefore

Mr. Avner’s conduct was not unwelcome. 

While Defendant’s view of events could be construed as a possible interpretation of

the evidence, the Court finds that the jury’s interpretation is a reasonable one and therefore

will not disturb the verdict. The jury heard all the evidence presented and was instructed

correctly on the elements of sexual harassment. Even assuming this Court considered

Defendant’s view of the evidence more reasonable, it is not for the Court to “substitute our

view of the evidence for that of the jury.” Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384

F.3d 700, 708 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 2:02-cv-02467-NVW Document 186 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Request for New Trial

Defendant moves for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. In support of its motion for new trial, Defendant argues that the jury’s verdict is

against the clear weight of the evidence, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and because

evidentiary errors substantially influenced the verdict. The Court rejects all three arguments.

Defendant argues that because this Court has the duty “to weigh the evidence as he

saw it, and to set aside the verdict of the jury, even though supported by substantial evidence,

where, in his conscientious opinion, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the

evidence, or . . . to prevent, in the sound discretion of the trial judge, a miscarriage of justice”

it must set aside the jury verdict. Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir.

1990). The Court notes the key words in the citation above of “conscientious opinion” and

“discretion.” The Court finds that in its conscientious opinion, the verdict is not contrary to

the clear weight of the evidence nor does it find a new trial necessary to prevent a

miscarriage of justice. In addition to reiterating the arguments it made regarding judgment

as a matter of law, Defendant claims that it cannot be vicariously liable for Avner’s conduct

because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the employer knew or should have known of the

harassment. Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s memory was cloudy and challenges the credibility

of the Plaintiff’s witnesses on this point. The Court finds this insufficient to require a new

trial. 

Finally, Defendant argues that it is entitled to a new trial because it was substantially

prejudiced by the exclusion of Plaintiff’s workplace comments of a sexual nature. The Court

sustained Plaintiff’s objection regarding admissibility of these statements based on

inadequate disclosure in the Final Pretrial Order and the Court affirms that decision here.

Defendant claims that the three statements, which it alleges are of a sexual nature, are

relevant to the issue of whether Avner’s conduct was unwelcome. The Court finds that even

if the statements were excluded in error, their exclusion did not result in substantial

prejudice. The exclusion of three statements over the term of Plaintiff’s lengthy employment,

none of which were directed at Avner, did not cause substantial prejudice to Defendant. 

Case 2:02-cv-02467-NVW Document 186 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of

Law or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial or Remittitur of Damages (Doc. # 180) is

GRANTED to the extend that Plaintiff’s compensatory damages are reduced to $300,000

and punitive damages are reduced to zero and DENIED in all other respects. 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-02467-NVW Document 186 Filed 03/27/06 Page 4 of 4