Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00908/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00908-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

TAMMY EDWARDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:07cv908-MHT

) (WO) 

HYUNDAI MOTOR )

MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, )

LLC, and MIKE SWINDLE, )

individually, )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

On the 1st day of May 2009, after this cause had been

submitted to a jury, a verdict form as to liability was

returned as follows:

CLAIM 1: Sexual Harassment

(Hostile Work Environment)

1. Do you find by a preponderance of the

evidence that Edwards has established the three

elements of step one?

Yes X 

No 

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 1 of 8
If “No,” you have found that Hyundai is not

liable on this claim. Move to CLAIM 2. 

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the

evidence that Hyundai has established its

affirmative defense at step two? 

Yes 

No X 

If you answered “Yes” to this question, then

you have found that Hyundai is not liable on

this claim. If you answered “Yes” to question

one and “No” to question two, then you have

found that Hyundai is liable on this claim.

CLAIM 2: Retaliation

1. Do you find by a preponderance of the

evidence that Edwards has established the four

elements of unlawful retaliation? 

Yes X 

No 

If “No,” you have found that Hyundai is not

liable on this claim. Move to CLAIM 3.

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the

evidence that Hyundai has proved that Edwards

would have been subjected to the same adverse

employment action for other reasons even in the

absence of her complaint of sexual harassment?

2

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 2 of 8
Yes 

No X 

If “Yes,” you have found that Hyundai is not

liable on this claim. However, if you answered

“Yes” to question one and “No” to question two,

then you have found that Hyundai is liable on

this claim. 

CLAIM 3: Negligent Supervision

1. Do you find by a preponderance of the

evidence that Hyundai failed to exercise

reasonable and ordinary care in supervising

Swindle?

Yes X 

No 

If “No,” you have found that Hyundai is not

liable on this claim. Move to CLAIM 4.

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the

evidence that Edwards’s own negligence

contributed in whole or in part to her damages?

Yes 

No X 

If “Yes,” you have found that Hyundai is not

liable on this claim. However, if you answered

“Yes” to question one, and you answered “No” to

question two, you have found that Hyundai is

liable on this claim.

3

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 3 of 8
CLAIM 4: Intentional Infliction

of Emotional Distress

May Edwards prevail on her claim of

intentional infliction of emotional distress

against defendant Swindle?

Yes X 

No 

CLAIM 5: Assault and Battery

May Edwards prevail on her claim of assault

and battery against Swindle?

Yes X 

No 

CLAIM 6: Invasion of Privacy

May Edwards prevail on her claim of invasion

of privacy against Swindle?

Yes X 

No 

SO SAY WE ALL.

 /S/ Steve Garst 

 FOREPERSON

Date: 5-1-09

4

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 4 of 8
Later, on the 1st day of May 2009, after this cause

had been resubmitted to a jury, a verdict form as to

damages was returned as follows:

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

1. How much, if any, may Edwards recover in

total compensatory damages?

$ 785,000 

2. What portion of those damages may be

attributed to:

Hyundai

a. Sexual Harassment $ 200,000 

b. Retaliation $ 200,000 

c. Negligent Supervision $ 300,000 

Swindle

d. Intentional Infliction

of Emotional Distress $ 50,000 

e. Assault and Battery $ 15,000 

f. Invasion of Privacy $ 20,000 

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

1. How much, if any, may Edwards recover in

total punitive damages?

5

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 5 of 8
$ 5,010,000 

2. What portion of those damages may be

attributed to:

Hyundai

a. Sexual Harassment $ 1,000,000 

b. Retaliation $ 1,000,000 

c. Negligent Supervision $ 3,000,000 

Swindle

d. Intentional Infliction

of Emotional Distress $ 6,000 

e. Assault and Battery $ 1,000 

f. Invasion of Privacy $ 3,000 

SO SAY WE ALL.

 /S/ Steve Garst 

 FOREPERSON

Date: 5-1-09

 It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court as follows:

(1) Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Tammy

Edwards and against defendants Hyundai Motor

6

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 6 of 8
Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, and Mike Swindle,

individually.

(2) Plaintiff Edwards shall have and recover from

defendant Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, the

sum of $ 700,000.00 in compensatory damages.

(3) Plaintiff Edwards shall have and recover from

defendant Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, the

additional sum of $ 5,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

(4) Plaintiff Edwards shall have and recover from

defendant Swindle, individually, the sum of $ 85,000.00 

in compensatory damages.

(5) Plaintiff Edwards shall have and recover from

defendant Swindle, individually, the additional sum of

$ 10,000.00 in punitive damages.

(6) The above awards are subject to any applicable

statutory damages caps.

It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against

defendants Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, and

7

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 7 of 8
Mike Swindle, individually, for which execution may

issue.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this

document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant

to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE, this the 5th day of May, 2009.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00908-MHT-SRW Document 150 Filed 05/05/09 Page 8 of 8