Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-68/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLOTTE BOSWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-0098 SI

Related Case C 04-0099 SI

SPECIAL VERDICT

We, the jury in the above entitled action, find the following for our special verdict:

(1) SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (SEXUAL HARASSMENT)

Question No. 1: Did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

Norman Stites was her supervisor and that he subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment at

FedEx, as defined in these instructions?

Yes __________ No __________

If the answer to Question No. 1 is “no,” please proceed directly to Question No. 6. If the answer to

Question No. 1 is “yes,” please proceed to Question No. 2.

Question No. 2: Did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that as a

result of sexual harassment by Norman Stites, she suffered a tangible employment action, as defined in

these instructions?

Yes __________ No __________

If the answer to Question No. 2 is “no,” please proceed to Question No. 3 . If the answer to Question

No.2 is “yes,” please proceed directly to Question No. 5.

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 759 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Question No. 3: Did defendant FedEx prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that FedEx exercised

reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the sexually harassing behavior?

Yes __________ No __________

If the answer to Question No. 3 is “no,” please proceed directly to Question No. 5. If the answer to

Question No. 3 is “yes,” please proceed to Question No. 4.

Question No. 4: Did defendant FedEx prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that plaintiff

unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by Fed Ex

or unreasonably failed to otherwise avoid harm?

Yes __________ No __________

If the answer to Question No. 4 is “no,” please proceed to Question No. 5. If the answer to Question

No. 4 is “yes,” please proceed to Question No. 6.

(2) CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

Question No. 5: Did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her

working conditions were made so intolerable by the sexually hostile work environment that a reasonable

person in plaintiff’s position would feel compelled to resign?

Yes __________ No __________

Please proceed to Question No. 6.

(3) RETALIATION

Question No. 6: Did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she

engaged in activities protected under federal law, such as opposing sexual advances, requests for sexual

conduct or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature?

Yes __________ No __________

If the answer to Question No. 6 is “no,” please go directly to Question No. 9. If the answer to Question

No. 6 is “yes,” please proceed to Question No. 7.

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 759 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Question No. 7: Did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

defendant FedEx subjected plaintiff to an adverse employment action, as defined in these instructions?

Yes __________ No __________

If the answer to Question No. 7 is “no,” please go directly to Question No. 9 . If the answer to Question

No. 7 is “yes,” please proceed to Question No. 8.

Question No. 8: Did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her

protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in causing defendant FedEx to take the adverse

employment action? 

Yes __________ No __________

Please go to Question No. 9.

Instructions for Question No. 9: If you answered Question No. 1 “no” and you answered either

Question No. 6 or No. 7 or No. 8 “no,” do not answer this question or any further questions;

instead, go directly to the end of this form, sign and date it where indicated. Likewise, if you

answered both Questions No. 3 and No. 4 “yes” and you answered either Question No. 6 or No.

7 or No. 8 “no,” do not answer this question or any further questions; instead, go directly to the

end of this form, sign and date it where indicated Otherwise, please answer the next questions

Question No. 9: What amount of damages, if any, did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, was caused to her by FedEx’s actions?

Lost earnings: $______________________________.

Other damages, including 

mental or emotional pain 

and suffering: $______________________________.

Question No. 10: Did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

defendant FedEx’s conduct toward her were malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of her rights,

as those terms are defined in these instructions?

Yes __________ No __________

If your answer to Question No. 10 was “no,” do not answer the next question; instead, go directly to the

end of this form, sign and date it where indicated. Otherwise, please answer the next question.

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 759 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Question No. 11: What amount of punitive damages, if any, did plaintiff Charlotte Boswell prove, by

a preponderance of the evidence, should be awarded in this case?

$______________________________.

Dated: _______________

___________________________________

FOREPERSON

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 759 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 4