Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06156/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Herman Hastings
Appellee
International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades Local #807
Appellant

Document Text:

' 

11ltBD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United till.I (;g Hlf ~,f Appeals 'tenth Ckruit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

HERMAN HASTINGS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee-, 

Cross-Appellant, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS 

& ALLIED TRADES LOCAL #807, 

Defendant-Appellant-, 

Cross-Appellee. 

R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Nos. 89-6156 

) 89-6174 

) & 

) 89-6208 

) (D.C. No. 88-119-A) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

These appeals arise from an action plaintiff Herman Hastings 

filed against defendant International Brotherhood of Painters & 

Allied Trades Local No. 807 (Union) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

(continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 1 
' 

In his complaint, Mr. Hastings alleged Union racially 

discriminated against him in failing to refer him to jobs within 

his trade. Following a jury trial, judgment in the amount of one 

dollar was entered in favor of Mr. Hastings. The district court 

also entered orders granting equitable relief and attorney's fees. 

Mr. Hastings appeals the damage award. Union appeals the verdict 

and the entry of attorney's fees. We affirm the district court in 

all respects. 

Facts 

Herman Hastings is a member of the International Brotherhood 

of Painters & Allied Trades in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. He is a 

painter and paperhanger. He has been a union member for many 

years, although not continuously. At the present time, Mr. 

Hastings is one of two black union members. Union membership 

totals approximately 125 today, down from a high of over 300 in 

1984. Union attributes the loss of members to a downturn in the 

local economy. 

As part of its services to members, Union refers painters and 

paperhangers to outside contractors requesting workers. From 

October 1986 through November 1987, Mr. Hastings did not receive 

any work referrals from the union. Testimony at trial indicated 

white members did receive referrals during this time period. Mr. 

Hastings filed this lawsuit alleging the failure to provide him 

with referrals constituted a violation of section 1981. 1 

1 42 u.s.c. § 1981 states: 

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States 

shall have the same right in every State and Territory 

(continued on next page) 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 2 
In its defense, Union argued that the downturn of the 

Oklahoma economy in the mid-1980s, combined with an unsuccessful 

union strike in 1985, caused a drastic reduction in the number of 

jobs available in the local economy. As a result, there were less 

union contracts, and, consequently, less referrals. In addition, 

Mr. Hastings was fired from a job after his employer alleged he 

was leaving work early. The employer told Union he would not be 

rehired. That contract was a main source of employment for union 

members in 1986-1987. 

In this appeal, Union raises four principal arguments: 1) 

that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, 2) 

that the court erred in not granting directed verdict and judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict motions, 3) that the court erred in 

allowing two former black union members to testify, and, finally, 

4) Union objects to the court's award of attorney's fees. In his 

appeal, Mr. Hastings asserts the court inappropriately allowed 

evidence of mitigation of damages. 

arguments in turn. 

Discussion 

A. Hastings Appeal 

We will address these 

During trial, the court allowed testimony regarding the 

efforts of other union members to obtain work outside the union 

(continued from previous page) 

to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give 

evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws 

and proceedings for the security of persons and property 

as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to 

like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and 

exactions of every kind, and to no other. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 3 
during the economic downturn. Rec. Vol. II at 262-63. The court 

also allowed counsel to question Hastings regarding his efforts to 

obtain work outside the union. Rec. Vol. I at 53-54. Hastings 

objected, asserting this testimony went to mitigation of damages, 

a defense which Union never raised. Id. The district court 

overruled Hastings' objections, finding this 

independent relevance going to the general 

opportunities in the area during 1986 and 1987. 

found the evidence relevant to Union's defenses. 

evidence had 

state of business 

Id. The court 

We review the district court's admission of this evidence 

under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. 

Alexander, 849 F.2d 1293, 1301 (10th Cir. 1988). Using this 

standard, we must generally defer to the district court's judgment 

because that court has the greatest opportunity to view the 

evidence and assess its probative value. United States v. Ortiz, 

804 F.2d 1161, 1164 n.2 (10th Cir. 1986). A trial court decision 

should not be disturbed unless this court has a "definite and firm 

conviction" that a mistake was made. Id. We agree with the 

district court that this evidence has independent relevance and 

find no abuse of discretion. 

Hastings further urges that even if the evidence is relevant, 

its relevance is outweighed by prejudice to the plaintiff. Rule 

403 of the rules of evidence states, "[a]lthough relevant, 

evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Rule 403 balancing 

is a task best left to the trial judge. Agristor Leasing v. 

Meuli, 865 F.2d 1150, 1152 (10th Cir. 1988). Union's main defense 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 4 
• 

in this case was that the economy, rather than any discrimination, 

caused a lack of work. Evidence regarding the state of business 

opportunities in Oklahoma City is directly relevant to that 

defense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in 

admitting this evidence. 

B. Union Appeal 

1. Subject matter jurisdiction 

As a threshold matter, we must consider Union's argument that 

the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this 

case. Although not argued previously, this issue may be raised at 

any point in the proceedings. See McAlester v. United Air Lines, 

Inc., 851 F.2d 1249, 1252 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Union asserts the issues raised in this lawsuit fall within 

the exclusive jurisdiction of 

(NLRA) and, therefore, may not 

court in the first instance. 

action should have been 

the National Labor Relations Act 

be brought in federal district 

Instead, Union argues plaintiff's 

pursued in accord with the remedies 

provided in the NLRA. We disagree. 

Hastings' action is founded on a federal civil rights 

statute. It was not raised as a claim under the union contract. 

See id. at 1253 ("Under the [Railway Labor Act], while the courts 

have no jurisdiction to hear airline employee claims based solely 

upon the contract, the courts do have jurisdiction over claims 

based upon federal statutes."). Further, the language in the 

complaint does not describe a cause of action which arguably falls 

under the NLRA. Rather, Hastings' claim only alleges violations 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 5 
• 

based on section 1981. Therefore, the NLRA does not preempt 

jurisdiction in the federal courts. 

2. Sufficiency of the evidence to deny directed verdict 

and JNOV motions 

"'Motions for a directed verdict and for judgment n.o.v. are 

considered under the same standard.'" Zimmerman v. First Fed. 

Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 848 F.2d 1047, 1051 (10th Cir. 1988)(quoting 

Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 734 F.2d 495, 498 (10th Cir. 

1984)). These motions may be granted only if the evidence points 

one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences supporting 

the party opposing the motion. Id. Our review is de nova. See 

Guilfoyle ex rel. Wild v. Missouri, Kan. & Tex. R.R., 812 F.2d 

1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1987). 

appropriately denied these motions. 

Here, the district court 

This case involved conflicting evidence requiring jury 

interpretation. We have reviewed the record and hold, contrary to 

Union's assertions, that there is sufficient evidence in the 

record to support the jury's verdict. Although the evidence Union 

submitted contradicted much of the evidence Hastings introduced, 

determinations regarding the credibility of that evidence were 

for the jury. We will not disturb its verdict. Consequently, we 

affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's motions for 

directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 

3. Testimony of former union members 

At trial, two former black union members, Clarence Dukes and 

Wilson Willis, were allowed to testify. Neither was a member 

during the time period relevant to this lawsuit. Clarence Dukes 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 6 
left the union in 1983. Wilson Willis left in 1979. However, 

both testified that they did not receive as many referrals as 

white members of the union during the time they belonged. Rec. 

Vol. II at 217-20, 231. Union objected to allowing these two 

witnesses to testify. The court overruled this objection. 2 We 

review the court's decision to allow this testimony under an abuse 

of discretion standard. See Alexander, 849 F.2d at 1301. 

Union's main objection to this testimony is that it was too 

remote in time to have any relevance regarding events occurring in 

1986 and 1987. The district court ruled that the testimony was 

relevant to the union's past history and practice of alleged 

discrimination. We agree. Moreover, the parties agreed that 

Union's past history was relevant. Although presented with the 

opportunity to do so, Union did not object to a proposed jury 

instruction describing this element of Hastings' claim. There is 

no abuse of discretion. 

Union also urges that there may have been a violation of the 

court's witness sequestration order because counsel for Union 

allegedly saw Mr. Hastings, Mr. Willis, and Mr. Dukes talking in 

the hall during a court recess. The court indicated counsel could 

cross-examine the witnesses on this issue but counsel declined to 

do so. There is no other evidence that this conversation occurred 

2 Hastings asserts Union did not preserve this issue on appeal 

because counsel withdrew his objection to the testimony of these 

witnesses. This is not clear from the record. The trial 

transcript indicates counsel did not waive Union's objection to 

the testimony in its entirety. Rather, Union withdrew an 

objection to a specific part of the testimony after the court 

ruled the two men could testify. Therefore, we will treat this 

issue as one preserved on appeal. 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 7 
or that it involved discussion of court proceedings. We hold the 

court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony. 

4. Attorney's fees 

"An award of attorney's fees is within the discretion of the 

district court, who is in a better position than an appellate 

court to determine the amount of effort expended and the value of 

the attorney's services." Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F.2d 808, 825 

(10th Cir. 1989). Section 1988 of title 42 specifically gives 

district courts discretion to award attorney's fees to the 

"prevailing party" in a civil rights action. On appeal, Union 

argues the district court erred in granting fees because the 

amount of the award will cause great financial hardship and 

because the fees are disproportionate to the monetary damages 

awarded. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion 

in awarding Hastings $12,000.00 in fees. 

Union does not object to the method the district court used 

in calculating the fees. Rather, it argues that the overall 

amount is unfairly disproportionate to the nominal verdict which 

the jury returned. However, the nominal amount of the damages, 

standing alone, is insufficient to reduce or eliminate attorney's 

fees under section 1988. See Nephew v. City of Aurora ex rel. Its 

Mayor & City Council, 830 F.2d 1547, 1548-50 (10th Cir. 1987) . 

Although proportionality is one factor which courts should 

consider in determining the amount of attorney's fees, the Supreme 

Court has rejected the proposition that fee awards be directly 

proportionate to the amount of damages awarded in civil rights 

cases. City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986). In 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 8 
this case, plaintiff sought and obtained extensive equitable 

relief in addition to the nominal damages award. We will not 

.disturb the district court's discretionary decision to award these 

fees based on Hastings' overall success in this litigation. 

Union's argument that financial hardship is cause for 

disallowing fees must also fail. The financial condition of the 

defendant should not be employed to reduce an otherwise 

appropriate award of attorney's fees. Stanwood v. Green, 559 

F. Supp. 196, 200-01 (D. Or. 1983), aff'd, 744 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 

1984). Ability to pay should be given substantial weight only in 

those cases where there is extreme and proven hardship present. 

Vulcan Soc. of Westchester County, Inc. v. Fire Dep't of City of 

White Plains, 533 F. Supp. 1054, 1060 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Union has 

not shown the district court abused its discretion in failing to 

reduce or eliminate these fees based on financial hardship. 

Consequently, we affirm the district court. 

The judgments of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma are AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

9 

Appellate Case: 89-6156 Document: 010110031036 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 9