Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02062/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02062-4/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

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Go Daddy Software, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2062-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On December 15, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor on a Title VII

retaliation claim and awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages, $250,000 in punitive

damages, and an advisory verdict of $135,000 in back pay. Defendant has filed a Motion for

Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b), and/or Motion for New Trial Pursuant

to Rule 59(a). Dkt. #196. Plaintiff has filed a Motion Regarding Back Pay, Record Keeping

and Equitable Relief. Dkt. #197. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant

Defendant’s motion with respect to the statutory cap on compensatory and punitive damages,

deny the remainder of Defendant’s motion, and grant Plaintiff’s motion in part. 

I. Defendant’s Motion.

A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law – Protected Activity.

Pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant asks the

Court to grant judgment in its favor on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. Defendant first argues

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 15
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 -

that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to demonstrate that Youseff Bouamama

engaged in protected activity. Dkt. #196 at 3-5. 

Defendant made a Rule 50(a) motion at the close of the evidence. Although

Defendant asked the Court to enter judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s retaliation

claim, Defendant did not argue that the motion should be granted because Plaintiff failed to

present sufficient evidence of a protected activity. The sole basis for Defendant’s motion

was that Plaintiff had failed to present evidence that Ms. Slezak told other members of the

promotion panel (Mr. Franklin and Mr. Villeneuve) about Plaintiff’s discrimination

complaints. Transcript, 12-15-06 at 140-41. “A party cannot raise arguments in its post-trial

motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) that it did not raise in its pre-verdict

Rule 50(a) motion.” Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, 347 F.3d 752, 761 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Defendant failed to argue that Plaintiff had presented insufficient evidence of a

protected activity, Defendant may not make that argument now. Id. 

B. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law – Insufficient Evidence of Nexus.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that Mr.

Bouamama’s termination was caused by retaliation for his protected activity. In ruling on

this argument, the Court must apply the same standard as it would in granting summary

judgment. Judgment may be entered for Defendant only if Plaintiff failed to present

sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to rule in Plaintiff’s favor. In making this

determination, “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of [Plaintiff], and it

may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson

Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). 

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff failed to prove causation because the decision to

eliminate Mr. Bouamama’s position was made before he engaged in any protected activity.

Defendant next argues that any causal link between Mr. Bouamama’s protected activity and

his termination was broken by Mr. Parson’s offer of an opportunity to qualify for an analyst

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 15
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

1

 Defendant did not make these arguments in its Rule 50(a) motion, but it did argue

that Plaintiff had failed to prove a connection between the protected activity and Mr.

Bouamama’s termination. Even if the Court were to take a liberal view of Defendant’s

Rule 50(a) motion, however, these arguments are not well-taken. First, as Plaintiff correctly

notes, the jury found that Defendant’s retaliation resulted in Mr. Bouamama’s termination,

not in the elimination of his position as Inbound Sales Manager. Defendant presented no

evidence that the decision to terminate Mr. Bouamama was made before he engaged in

protected activity. Indeed, Defendant claimed that Mr. Bouamama was not terminated at all.

Second, whether any causal link between the protected activity and the termination was

broken by Mr. Parson’s offer of an analyst position was a question of fact for the jury to

decide. The jury clearly chose to disbelieve Defendant’s assertion that it did not terminate

Mr. Bouamama, and also could reasonably have chosen to disbelieve Defendant’s assertion

that Mr. Bouamama genuinely was offered an opportunity to qualify for an analyst position.

The jury also could have concluded that Mr. Franklin and Ms. Slezak decided to terminate

Mr. Bouamama as a result of his protected activity regardless of the analyst opportunity.

- 3 -

position. Because Defendant failed to make these arguments in its Rule 50(a) motion at the

close of the evidence, it cannot make them now. Freund, 347 F.3d at 761.1

 

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that the decisionmaker responsible for terminating Mr. Bouamama was aware of his protected activity. The

Court disagrees. Mr. Bouamama testified that he was terminated by Mr. Franklin and Ms.

Slezak. He also testified that he complained to Ms. Slezak about discriminatory conduct by

Mr. Franklin only days before his termination. Viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, the Court concludes

that the jury reasonably could have found that both Mr. Franklin and Ms. Slezak were aware

of the protected activity and that their termination of Mr. Bouamama was in response to that

activity.

C. Motion for New Trial Based on the Weight of the Evidence.

Defendant asks the Court to grant a new trial under Rule 59(a) because the jury’s

verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. The Ninth Circuit has provided the

following guidance for ruling on such a motion: 

“a decent respect for the collective wisdom of the jury, and for the function

entrusted to it in our system, certainly suggests that in most cases the judge

should accept the findings of the jury, regardless of his own doubts in the

matter. . . . If, having given full respect to the jury’s findings, the judge on the

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 15
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 -

entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed, it is to be expected that he will grant a new trial.”

Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (9th Cir. 1987)

(citing C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2806, at 48-49 (1973)).

 Having considered all of the evidence presented at trial, the Court does not conclude

that a new trial is warranted. Mr. Bouamama testified that he complained to Ms. Slezak on

more than one occasion about conduct he believed to be discriminatory. This conduct

included Mr. Franklin’s inquiry about his religion and national origin and Mr. Franklin’s

responsive comment that Mr. Bouamama was lucky Mr. Franklin liked him. Mr. Bouamama

testified that he was terminated by Ms. Slezak and Mr. Franklin within a matter of days of

his last complaint. The evidence suggested that other individuals denied a promotion to a

Sales Supervisor position were offered continuing positions on the sales floor. Although

Defendant claimed to have made the same offer to Mr. Bouamama, the jury chose to believe

Mr. Bouamama’s testimony that he was not given such an option, but instead was terminated

by Ms. Slezak and Mr. Franklin. Mr. Bouamama further testified that he was immediately

escorted out of the building by Ms. Slezak. From this and other evidence, the jury could

have concluded that Mr. Bouamama was terminated in retaliation for his complaints about

conduct by Mr. Franklin that he regarded as discriminatory. The issue is not whether the

Court would have reached that conclusion, but whether the Court is left with a definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Mindful of the respect that must be

afforded the collective wisdom of the jury, the Court does not conclude that such a mistake

occurred in this case. 

D. Motion for New Trial Based on Back Pay and Punitive Damages.

Defendant argues that the Court should hold a new trial because the jury awarded Mr.

Bouamama $135,000 in back pay. The back pay verdict, however, is merely advisory. The

question of back pay is an equitable remedy for the Court to decide. The jury’s advisory

verdict certainly is not a basis for a new trial.

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 4 of 15
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

- 5 -

Defendant also argues that the jury’s award of $250,000 in punitive damages requires

a new trial. The Court does not agree. Defendant correctly notes that punitive damages are

warranted only if Plaintiff proves that Defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference

to Mr. Bouamama’s federally protected rights. Dkt. #196 at 12 (citing Kolstad v. Am. Dental

Ass’n., 527 U.S. 526, 535 (1999)). The Court concludes, however, that a jury reasonably

could have found that this standard was satisfied by Plaintiff’s evidence. The most

prominent actor in Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation was Ms. Slezak. According to Plaintiff’s

evidence, she was the individual to whom Mr. Bouamama complained, one of two

individuals who terminated Mr. Bouamama, and the individual who escorted Mr. Bouamama

from the building. She was also Defendant’s director of human resources and an individual

trained in discrimination law. If the jury accepted Mr. Bouamama’s claim of her

involvement in his retaliation, the jury also could have concluded that she acted with reckless

indifference to the federally protected rights of which she clearly was aware.

E. Statutory Cap on Compensatory and Punitive Damages.

Defendant contends that it qualifies for the $200,000 statutory cap on compensatory

and punitive damages in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(C) because it had between 200 and 500

employees on the date of Mr. Bouamama’s termination. Defendant cites several cases for

the proposition that the applicable number of employees must be determined during the year

the discriminatory act took place, not during the year in which the Court’s judgment is

rendered. See, e.g., Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 209 F.3d 438, 446 (5th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff cites no authority to the contrary.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to present sufficient evidence that it had

fewer than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the year of Mr.

Bouamama’s termination, as required by the statute. Dkt. #199. Ms. Slezak testified without

contradiction, however, that Defendant had approximately 45 employees when she started

with the company in December of 2001 and just over 200 employees when Mr. Bouamama

was terminated in April of 2003. Dkt. #187 at 132-33. This is sufficient evidence that

Defendant had fewer than 500 employees during 20 or more weeks in the year in which Mr.

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 15
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

- 6 -

Bouamama was terminated or in the preceding year. The jury’s award of compensatory and

punitive damages will therefore be capped at $200,000. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion.

A. Record keeping.

Section 709(c) of Title VII requires employers to “make and keep such records

relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are

being committed” and “preserve such records for such periods . . . as the Commission shall

prescribe by regulation[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c). EEOC regulations provide that “[a]ny

personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer . . . shall be preserved by the

employer for a period of one year from the date of making the record or the personnel action

involved, whichever occurs later.” 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (2000). The regulation also provides

that the “employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until

. . . final disposition of the charge or action.” Id.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant violated these requirements by not preserving the 28

two-page interview questionnaires completed by Messrs. Franklin and Villeneuve during the

Sales Supervisor selection process. Dkt. #197 at 2. Ms. Slezak testified that she initially

retained these documents, but somehow later misplaced them. Ms. Slezak also testified that

she knew she should have preserved the records. 

Defendant counters that the interview questionnaires were insignificant sketches of

the interviewers’ impressions that were used to complete a one-page summary sheet that

ranked each of the candidates. Dkt. #198 at 2. Defendant claims the interview sheets were

merely rough drafts of the final ranking sheet. Id. In the case cited by Defendant, the

Seventh Circuit ruled that a company did not err in disposing of individual ranking sheets by

different reviewers that were then used to create a composite, final ranking sheet. See

Rummery v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 250 F.3d 553, 558-59 (7th Cir. 2001). This case is

different, however, because Defendant disposed of interview questionnaires consisting of

nine questions, not merely individual numerical rankings that were used to produce a onepage summary ranking sheet. Although the information used in making the ranking sheet

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 6 of 15
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

- 7 -

came from the questionnaires, the questionnaires were not merely rough drafts of the final

ranking. See Favors v. Fisher, 13 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding company

obligated to retain a ten-question test administered to candidates for promotion). The Court

finds that Defendant failed to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 29 C.F.R.

§ 1602.14. The Court also finds, however, that the failure was inadvertent. This fact will be

taken into account in fashioning an appropriate remedy.

B. Back Pay.

Plaintiff asks the Court to award $135,000 in back pay to Mr. Bouamama, consistent

with the jury’s advisory verdict. Dkt. #194. Victims of discrimination are entitled to back

pay under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1); Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., 224 F.3d

1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2000). Mathematical certainty is not necessary. Kaplan Int. Alliance

of Theatrical and Stage Employees, 525 F.2d 1354, 1362-63 (9th Cir. 1975). 

Mr. Bouamama testified at trial that he lost wages of between $120,000 and $150,000.

He arrived at these numbers by projecting the amount he would have made had he stayed in

Defendant’s employ at a salary of $46,000. Using information from his W-2 tax forms, he

then deducted wages he earned at Midland Credit Management after his termination.

Defendant presented no evidence on the amount of Mr. Bouamama’s lost pay. 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff provided insufficient evidence of back pay. Dkt. #198

at 3. Because any evidence of back pay was testimonial and partially based on W-2 forms

not admitted into evidence, Defendant claims that “the jury’s proposed back pay award of

$135,000.00 is not supported by the evidence, is contrary to the law, and a new trial must be

granted.” Id. at 4. In support, Defendant recites the definition of back pay, which is the

“difference between actual earnings for the period and those which [Mr. Bouamama] would

have earned absent the discrimination by defendant.” Gotthardt v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger

Corp., 191 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999). Defendant concludes that “Plaintiff failed to

provide evidence of either figure – Bouamama’s actual earnings after leaving Go Daddy or

Bouamama’s income had he remained.” Dkt. #198 at 4. 

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 7 of 15
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

- 8 -

As an initial matter, the Court notes again that the jury’s advisory verdict is no basis

for a new trial. Defendant can urge the Court to reject the advisory verdict or can present

additional arguments regarding the appropriate amount of back pay, but the advisory verdict

is not a basis for trying this case anew.

Addressing the first issue – Mr. Bouamama’s earnings after termination – Defendant

cites Taylor v. Philips Indus. Inc., 593 F.2d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 1979), for the proposition that

back pay damages are not available when the plaintiff cannot provide any evidence of actual

earnings following her discharge. But Plaintiff did provide evidence of Mr. Bouamama’s

earnings after discharge. Unlike Taylor, Mr. Bouamama testified that he used his posttermination W-2 forms to mitigate the back pay award he sought. Defendant presented no

evidence to the contrary. 

Addressing the second component of the back pay determination – Mr. Bouamama’s

income had he remained at Go Daddy – Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not provide

evidence that Mr. Bouamama would have continued to make $46,000 per year. Defendant

notes that Mr. Bouamama’s position of Inbound Sales Manager was eliminated and asserts

that there is no reliable measure of how much he would have made in a new position. Dkt.

#198 at 5. 

The Court agrees with part of Defendant’s argument. The evidence at trial established

that Mr. Franklin embarked upon a significant reorganization of Defendant’s sales operation

immediately upon his arrival, including elimination of the Inbound Sales Manager position.

This decision was made before Mr. Bouamama’s protected activity. Mr. Bouamama and a

number of other affected employees applied for several new Sales Supervisor positions that

were to be created as part of the reorganization. Mr. Bouamama claimed that he was denied

the new position because of his religion and national origin, but the jury rejected this claim.

Dkt. #194. The jury also found that Mr. Bouamama would have been denied the Sales

Supervisor job even if his protected activity had played no role in Defendant’s decision. Id.

The undisputed evidence further demonstrated that employees who were not promoted to

Sales Supervisor were offered positions on the sales floor as Sales Representatives. Thus,

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 8 of 15
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

 The Court recognizes that Mr. Bouamama might have received raises in the more

than three years since he would have become a Sales Representative at Defendant, but

Plaintiff presented no evidence concerning the likely amount of such raises. Nor did Plaintiff

present evidence to show that Mr. Bouamama’s earning potential would have been greater

at Defendant than at Midland Credit Management. 

- 9 -

had no unlawful retaliation occurred, Mr. Bouamama’s Inbound Sales Manager position

would have been eliminated, he would not have received the Sales Supervisor position, and

he, like the other unsuccessful applicants, would have been offered a position as Sales

Representative.

Given these facts, Mr. Bouamama would not have continued to make $46,000 dollars

per year had he remained with Defendant. The undisputed evidence at trial demonstrated that

unsuccessful applicants who accepted Sales Representative positions received a cut in pay.

Trial Exs. 96-99; Transcripts, 12-13-06 at 19-21; 12-14-06 at 247-48. Some of the

unsuccessful applicants received $14.40 per hour. Dkt. #201 at 5 n. 2. Although the parties

presented no evidence concerning the amount Mr. Bouamama would have received had he

become a Sales Representative, the Court finds it reasonable to conclude he too would have

been paid $14.40 per hour. 

Using this amount, the Court will award Mr. Bouamama a total of $36,552 in back

pay. This figure includes two components: (1) $14.40 per hour of back pay during the eleven

months Mr. Bouamama was unemployed after his termination by Defendant, and (2) $1.40

per hour for the remaining time up to the present, during which he has been employed by

Midland Credit Management at $13.00 per hour. Trial Ex. 282. The Court arrived at $1.40

per hour by subtracting Mr. Bouamama’s Midland wage of $13.00 per hour from the $14.40

he would have earned had he become a Sales Representative at Defendant.2

 

Plaintiff also seeks to recover pre-judgment interest on the back pay award. Dkt. #197

at 5. An award of prejudgment interest serves the goal of making an employee whole after

a defendant has violated Title VII. See Ford v. Alforo, 785 F.2d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff computed this interest to be $19,043 based on the IRS prime rate and a back pay

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 9 of 15
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

- 10 -

award of $135,000. The Court has taken judicial notice of the IRS interest rates used for

computation of back pay (Dkt. #197, Ex. 5) and has reviewed Plaintiff’s methodology in

determining the amount of interest, which the Court finds reasonable. The Court has reduced

the prejudgment interest proportionately with the reduction of back pay and will award

$5,156 of prejudgment interest. 

C. Reinstatement and Front Pay.

Plaintiff asks the Court to reinstate Mr. Bouamama to a position comparable in pay

and responsibility to Inbound Sales Manager. Dkt. #197 at 6. Alternatively, Plaintiff asks

the Court to award Mr. Bouamama three years of front pay at $46,000 per year. Id. at 7.

Reinstatement is preferred to front pay under Title VII. See Cassino v. Reichold

Chems., Inc., 817 F.2d 1338, 1346 (9th Cir. 1987). Front pay is appropriate when

reinstatement is not viable for reasons such as antagonism between the parties or when no

position is available due to a reduction in force. Id.; see also Thorne v. City of El Segundo,

802 F.2d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 1986); Cancellier v. Federated Dept. Stores, 672 F.2d 1312,

1319 (9th Cir. 1982). Ultimately, reinstatement is not a mandatory remedy, but rather “lies

within the discretion of the trial court after careful consideration of the particular facts of the

case.” Id. 

Defendant argues that Mr. Bouamama is not entitled to reinstatement as Inbound Sales

Manager or a comparable position because “[t]he undisputed evidence in the trial record

establishes that Go Daddy eliminated the Inbound Sales Manager position before Bouamama

allegedly engaged in protected activity.” Id. (emphasis in original). The Court agrees. As

explained above, the evidence and jury verdict confirm that if no retaliation had occurred,

Mr. Bouamama’s Inbound Sales Manager position would have been eliminated, he would

not have received the Sales Supervisor position, and he would have been offered a position

as Sales Representative. If the Court were to order reinstatement, therefore, it would be to

the lower position of Sales Representative. 

The Court concludes, however, that such reinstatement is not warranted. Sales

Representative is not truly the position Mr. Bouamama seeks. Plaintiff presented evidence

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 10 of 15
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

- 11 -

that Mr. Bouamama had been promoted beyond the position of Sales Representative some

time before the events at issue in this case, and Mr. Bouamama complained at trial that he

was not given the higher position of Sales Supervisor. The evidence further suggested that

Mr. Bouamama’s previous work as a Sales Representative had been less than fully

satisfactory for him and his supervisors. In addition, Mr. Bouamama has been employed

since 2004 with Midland Credit Management and presented no evidence to suggest that he

has a less promising future with that company than he would have as a Sales Representative

at Defendant. What is more, Mr. Bouamama has made accusations of discrimination against

managers still at Defendant, has been engaged in litigation against Defendant for several

years, and will recover substantial actual and punitive damages in this case. All of these facts

convince the Court that reinstatement is neither warranted nor wise. See Cassino, 817 F.2d

at 1347 (denying reinstatement because of hostility between the parties); Cancellier, 672

F.2d at 1319-20 (denying reinstatement because of history of acrimony toward plaintiff and

because plaintiff’s verdict was sufficient to make plaintiff whole). 

Plaintiff alternatively seeks front pay of $46,000 for three years. Such an award is

clearly unwarranted given Mr. Bouamama’s current employment at Midland Credit

Management and the fact that his position as Inbound Sales Manager was eliminated before

he engaged in protected activity. Moreover, Plaintiff presented no evidence from which the

Court could conclude that his future earning potential at Midland would be less than his

potential at Defendant. This lack of evidence was conceded by Plaintiff’s counsel during

trial. Transcript, 12-15-06 at 6. Had Plaintiff presented evidence on the issue of front pay,

the Court would have sought an advisory verdict from the jury. Given the absence of such

evidence, however, the Court concluded not to seek such a verdict, a decision with which

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed. Id. Because Plaintiff presented no evidence of lost future

earnings on the part Mr. Bouamama, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for an award of

front pay.

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 11 of 15
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

- 12 -

D. Non-Monetary Equitable Relief.

Plaintiff requests several types of non-monetary equitable relief. See Dkt. #197 at 8-

10. When an employer engages in an unlawful employment practice, a court may “enjoin

[the employer] from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such

affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include . . . any . . . equitable relief as

the court deems appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). “[T]he district court has not

merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the

discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the future.” Albemarle

Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418 (1975). “Generally, a person subjected to

employment discrimination is entitled to an injunction against future discrimination unless

the employer proves it is unlikely to repeat the practice.” EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace

Corp., 813 F.2d 1539, 1544 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff first requests that the Court permanently enjoin Defendant from violating

Title VII. Dkt. #197 at 9. Such an injunction would: “(1) instruct [Defendant] that it must

comply with federal law, (2) subject it to the contempt power of the federal courts if it

commits future violations, and (3) reduce the chilling effect of its alleged retaliation on its

employees’ exercise of their Title VII rights.” Goodyear, 813 F.2d at 1544. 

Defendant has not carried its burden of proving that it is unlikely to repeat the practice

of retaliating against employees who engage in protected activity. Although Defendant states

that one of the discriminators, Craig Franklin, is no longer with the company, other alleged

discriminators remain. Evidence that Defendant has undertaken Title VII training and

education programs fail to prove that no further Title VII violation will occur. See id.

(stating that an “employer that takes curative actions only after it has been sued fails to

provide sufficient assurances that it will not repeat the violation to justify denying an

injunction). Finally, Defendant states that Plaintiff has not proven that Defendant retaliated

against other employees either before or after Mr. Bouamama’s termination. But as the Ninth

Circuit has made clear, it is Defendant’s burden, not Plaintiff’s to prove that discrimination

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 12 of 15
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

- 13 -

is unlikely to recur. See id. The Court will enjoin Defendants from further violating Title

VII. 

Second, Plaintiff requests that Defendant “be required to implement injunctive relief,

including but not limited to employee training on Title VII and retaliation, post a notice

regarding retaliation, review and/or revise its employment discrimination policies and

reporting requirements.” Dkt. #197 at 9. Defendant responds that it is already conducting

training of its employees. On the basis of the evidence presented at trial – evidence which

demonstrated that Defendant employs a diverse work force and evidence which was devoid

of any suggestion of other discriminatory activity – the Court is unwilling to interfere with

Defendant’s voluntary Title VII compliance and finds this type of injunctive relief

unnecessary. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). 

Third, Plaintiff requests that Defendant be required to post a notice stating its intent

to comply with Title VII and advising employees of their rights for relief from

discrimination. Dkt. #179 at 9. Plaintiff believes that “[ s]uch notice will serve the dual

purpose of educating Go Daddy’s current and future employees regarding their rights and

remedies under Title VII and reminding Go Daddy of its obligation to uphold those rights.”

Id. The Court agrees. This type of injunctive relief is minimally intrusive, will provide clear

expectations regarding Defendant’s conduct, and will identify remedies available to

employees who might experience discrimination.

Fourth, Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendant to comply with the recordkeeping

requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, as well as to advise the EEOC of all decisions covered

by that regulation and to make all records available to the EEOC for inspection. Id. Because

the Court finds that Defendant failed to follow the recordkeeping requirements in this case,

the Court will order Defendant to comply with the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14. The

Court will not, however, order Defendant to advise the EEOC of all decisions covered by the

regulation or to make all records available for EEOC inspection. The evidence at trial

demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction that the loss of records in this case was accidental,

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 13 of 15
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

- 14 -

and the existing regulations and the Court’s order will provide sufficient assurances that

Defendant will not again violate the recordkeeping requirements. 

Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to impose monitoring and reporting requirements for

two years. Id. at 10. The Court will deny this relief. The jury rejected Plaintiff’s claim that

Defendant discriminated on the basis of national origin or religion. Although the jury found

that Defendant engaged in unlawful retaliation, one instance of such conduct in a company

that has grown to over 1,300 employees does not warrant the imposition of monitoring and

reporting requirements. The substantial monetary judgments imposed by this case, the

injunctions that Defendant comply with Title VII and the recordkeeping regulations, and the

requirement that Defendant post notices concerning Title VII compliance and relief constitute

sufficient sanctions for the single instance of retaliation established at trial.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b),

and/or Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59(a) (Dkt. #196) is granted

with respect to the statutory cap on compensatory and punitive damages and

denied with respect to all other requested relief. 

2. Plaintiff’s recovery of punitive and compensatory damages shall be reduced

to a total of $200,000, consisting of $5,000 in compensatory and $195,000 in

punitive damages.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion Regarding Back Pay, Recordkeeping and Equitable Relief

(Dkt. #197) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.

4. Mr. Bouamama is awarded $36,552 in back pay and $5,156 in prejudgment

interest.

5. Defendant is enjoined from retaliating against any employee who complains

of discrimination, opposes any act or practice made unlawful by Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or files a charge, testifies, assists, or participates

in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. 

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 14 of 15
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

- 15 -

6. Defendant shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 29 C.F.R.

§ 1602.14.

7. For a period of 12 months following entry of final judgment, Defendant shall

post a notice to all employees in at least three prominent in-house locations

frequented by Defendant’s employees. The notice shall explain Defendant’s

responsibilities and the employees’ rights under Title VII, including the

employees’ right to complain about or oppose discrimination free from

retaliation, and shall provide the addresses and telephone numbers of the

Phoenix office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the

Arizona Civil Rights Division. 

8. Within ten days of this order, Plaintiff shall lodge a proposed final judgment

accurately reflecting the decisions in this order. 

DATED this 6th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 204 Filed 04/09/07 Page 15 of 15