### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A pr i l 19, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 11695 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 96 -032 57 -C V -R R A -M A N T H O N Y A S H , J O H N H I T H O N , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , E D D I E B U L L O C K , e t a l., P la in tif f s , v ersu s T Y S O N F O O D S , I N C ., ac o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , T H O M A S H A R T L E Y , a n in d iv id u a l, D e f e n d a n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l19, 2005)2

B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a nt s A nthony A s h a nd J ohn H i thon, bl a c k m a l e s , ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ the ap p ellan ts”) ap p ea l th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd er s ( 1 ) g ra n ti n g T ys o n F o o d s, In c.’s re new ed m ot i on for j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw , pu rs uantt o F ed. R . C i v. P . 50 (b), on thei r 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e et s e q. ( “ T i t l e V I I ” ) a nd 42 U . S . C . § 1981 di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m s, and (2) al t ernat i vel y gra nt i ng T ys on ’ s m ot i on for anew tr i a l , pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 50( c ) , on the ba s i s tha tthe j ury ’ s puni t i ve a nd c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s a w a r d s w e r e e x c e s s iv e a n d u n s u p p o r te d b y th e e v id e n c e . W e a f f irm in p a r t a n d r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d in p a r t. D uri ng the sum m erof 19 95 , the appel l ant s, w ho w er e s up er i nt endent s a t T ys on ’ s G adse n, A l abam a pou l trypl ant , appl i ed for tw o shi ftm anager posi t i on s a t the G adse n p l ant . T ho m as H at l ey , the G adse n p l antm anager, deci ded t o h i re R a n d y K in g a n d S te v e D a d e , w h ite m a le s , f o rth e tw o s h if

t m a n a g e rp o s itio n s . F ol l ow i ng H at l ey ’ s dec i si on t o cho ose K i ng and D ade f or the shi ftm anager p o s itio n s , th e ap p e lla n ts f ile d s u it, c la im in g , i nt er a lia , tha tthe i rf a i l ur e t o be pr om ot e d t o the s hi f

tm a na ge rpos i t i ons vi ol a t e d the i rr i ght s unde rT i t l e V I I a nd 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 . A . J udgm e nt as a M at te rof L aw3

O n appe a l , the appe l l a nt s i ni t i a l l y a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d not h a v e g r a n te d T y s o n ’s r e n e w e d m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w b e c a u s e it ha d de ni e d the m ot i ons f orj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w a ttr i a l a nd the r e w e r e no i nt erveni ng event s t o j ust i fythe courtt o chang e i t s m i nd . T he appel l ant s then cont end thatT ys on ’ s r ea sons for notprom ot i ng them w er e pre t extual . In supp ort of the pr e t e xta r gum e nt , the appe l l a nt s a r gue tha t : ( 1) H a t l e y pr ovi de d s hi f t i ng re as on s f or hi s dec i si on no tt o h i re them ; (2) H at l eyused qu al i fi ca t i on s that (a) w ere n o treq u i red b y co m p an y p o l i cy, an d(b ) ex cl u d ed th e ap p el l an t s; (3 ) H atley o n ly ch ec k ed re fe re n ce s f o r b lack ca n d id ates an d d idn o t rev iew K in g ’s orD a de ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e r e vi e w s orpe r s onne l f i l e s ; ( 4) H a t l e y l i e d aboutac ol l e ge degree r equi re m entfor the shi ftm anager posi t i on ; (5) H at l eyoffe re d K i ng the shi ft m anager posi t i on before i nt ervi ew i ng H i tho n for the j ob ; (6) H at l eyhand -pi cked D a de f orthe s hi f

tm a na ge rpos i t i on de s pi t e t e l l i ng the s upe r i nt e nde nt s tha the w o u ld h o ld th e p o s itio n o p e n b e f o r e d e c id in g o n th e p r o m o tio n ; ( 7 ) T y s o n f a ile d to prov e thatthe G adse n p l antw as l osi ng m on eyw hen A sh and H i tho n w er e superi nt endent s; and (8) H at l ey ’ s dec i si on w as m ade i n an atm osph er e w here bl ac k e m pl oy e e s w e r e tr e a t e d di f f e r e nt l y , i nc l udi ng H a t l e y ’ s c ool de m e a nort ow a r d the ap p e lla n ts a n d h is s ta te m e n ts r e f e rr in g to th e ap p e lla n ts a s “b o y s .” W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof aF e d. R . C i v. P . 50( b) r e ne w e d m ot i on4

f o rj u d g m e n ta s am a tt e ro f l a w de no vo and app l y the sa m e s t andard as the di stri ct c o u r t. See A b e l v . D u b b e r ly , 210 F . 3d 1334, 1337 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . I n r e vi e w i ng th e e v id e n c e , w e d r a w a ll f a c tu a l in f

e r e n c e s a n d r e s o lv e a ll c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i ons i n f

a vorof the non- m ovi ng pa r t i e s , w hi c h i n thi s c a s e a r e A s h a nd H ith o n . Mun oz v. O ce an si de R es ort s, Inc. , 22 3 F . 3d 13 40 , 13 44 -45 (11 th C i r. 2000) . H ow e ve r , “ the non- m ova ntm us tputf or th m or e tha n am e r e s c i nt i l l aof e vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng tha tr e a s onabl e m i nds c oul d r e a c h di f f e r i ng ve r di c t s [ , ] ” a nd m us ts how “ [ a ] s ubs t a nt i a l c onf l i c ti n the e vi de nc e . . . be f or e am a tt e rw i l l be s e nt t o the j ury. ” A bel , 210 F . 3d a t1337. “ C r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons , the w e i ghi ng of the evi dence, and the draw i ng of l egi t i m at e i nfer ence s f rom the fa ct s a re j ury funct i on s, no ttho se of a j ud ge. ” R ee ves v . Sa nd er son P lum bi ngP rodu ct

s, Inc. , 530 U . S . 133, 150, 120 S . C t . 2097, 2110, 147 L . E d. 2d 105 ( 2000) ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ A m ot i on f orj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w w i l l be deni ed on l y i f r ea sonabl e a nd fa i r- m i nd ed pers on s i n the exerc i se of i m part i al j ud gm entm i gh tre ac h d i ff er entconcl usi on s. ” A bel , 2 1 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 7 ( c ita tio n , i nt ernal pu nctuat i on and q uo t at i on om i tt ed). T i t l e V I I of

the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964 pr ohi bi t s a n e m pl oy e rf r om

“ d i scri m i n at [i n g ] ag ai n stan y i n d i v i d u al w i th resp ectt o co m p en sat i o n , t erm s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent , because of s uch i nd i vi du al ’ s r ac e . . . . ”5

42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-2(a) (1). U nd er42 U . S . C . § 1 98 1, every per son i n the U ni t ed S ta te s : s ha l l ha ve the s a m e r i ghti n e ve ry S t a t e a nd T e rr i t ory t o m a ke a nd e nf or c e c ontr a c t s , t o s ue , be pa r t i e s , gi ve e vi de nc e , a nd t o the f ul l a nd e qua l be ne f

i tof a l l l a w s a nd pr oc e e di ngs f orthe s e c ur i ty of

pe r s ons a n d p r o p e r ty a s is e n

jo y e d b y w h ite c itiz e n s , a n d s h a ll b e s u b je c t to l i ke puni s hm e nt , pa i ns , pe na l t i e s , t a xe s , l i c e ns e s , a nd e xa c t i ons of e v e ry k in d , a n d to n o o th e r . 42 U . S . C . § 1981( a ) . T hi s s t a tut e i s i nt e rpr e t e d a s “ a f f or d[ i ng] af

e de r a l r e m e dy agai nstdi sc ri m i nat i on i n p ri vat e e m pl oym enton the basi s of r ac e. ” John son v. R ai lw ay E

xpress A gency, Inc. , 421 U . S . 454, 459- 60, 95 S . C t . 1716, 1720, 44 L . E d. 2d 29 5 (19 75 ). W hen a cas e of i nt ent i on al di sc ri m i nat i on i s broug htun der ei ther T i t l e V II or § 1 98 1, w e e m pl oy the McD on nel l D ou glas C orp. v. G re en , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 , 9 3 S .C t. 1 8 1 7 , 3 6 L .E d .2 d 6 6 8 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , f r a m e w o rk . See C oo

per v . Southe r n C o. , 39 0 F . 3d 69 5, 72 4 n . 16 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). U nd er McD onne l l

D ouglas , 41 1 U . S . at80 2, 93 S . C t . at18 24 , the pl ai nt i ff m ustfi rs tes t abl i sh a p r i ma fa c ie ca se of di sc ri m i nat i on , w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff es t abl i shes i n a fa i l ure t o p rom ot e c as e by s ho w i ng that : (1) “ he i s am em ber of a pr ot e c t e d c l a s s ” ; ( 2) “ he w a s qua l i f i e d f ora nd appl i e d f

orthe pr om ot i on” ; ( 3) “ he w a s r e j e c t e d” ; a nd ( 4) “ othe re qua l l y orl e s s qua l i f i e d e m pl oy e e s w ho w e r e not m em bers of the prot ec t ed cl as s w er e prom ot ed. ” C om bs v . P lantat i on P at te r ns , 10 6 F . 3d 15 19 , 15 39 n. 11 (11th C i r. 19 97 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). O nce a p r i ma fa c ie6

ca se i s devel op ed, the defendanthas the bu rden of prod uci ng a l egi t i m at e, n o n - d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n f o rits d e c is io n . See R ee ves , 5 3 0 U .S . a t 1 4 2 , 1 2 0 S .C t. at21 06 . O nce these tw o b urdens have been m et , the McD onne l l D ouglas fr am ew ork d i sapp ea rs , and the sol e i ss ue i s w hether the em pl oyerac t ed d is c r im in a to r ily . I

d. a t142- 43, 120 S . C t . a t2106. T he pl a i nt i f f a l w a y s ha s the u l t i m at e b u rd en t o p ro v e th atd i scri m i n at i o n ex i st ed an d m ay est ab l i sh di s c r i m i na t i on “ by s how i ng tha tthe e m pl oy e r ’ s pr of f e r e d e xpl a na t i on i s unw or thy of cr edence. ” I

d. (c it atio n an d in tern al q u o tati o n o m itted ). T h er ef o re , “ a p lain ti ff’s p rim a f ac ie ca se , co m b in ed w ith su ff icien t ev id en ce to fin d th at th e e m p lo ye r’s a s s e r t e d j us t i f

i c a t i on i s f

a l s e , m a y pe rm i tthe tr i e rof f a c tt o c onc l ude tha tthe em pl oyerun l aw ful l y di sc ri m i nat ed. ” I d. at14 8, 12 0 S . C t . at21 09 . H ow ever , an em pl oyerw ou l d b e e nt i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw w here “ the pl ai nt i ff c r e a t e d onl y aw e a k i s s ue of f a c ta s t o w he the rthe e m pl oy e r ’ s r e a s on w a s untrue a nd the r e w a s abunda nta nd unc ontr ove r t e d i nde pe nde nte vi de nc e tha tno di sc ri m i nat i on had o cc urre d. ” I d. ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t is o la te d g e n e r a l r a c ia l c o m m e n ts “a r e n o t di re ct evi dence of di sc ri m i nat i on because they a re ei ther t oo re m ot e i n t i m e or t oo att enuat ed b e c a u s e th e y w e r e n o t d ir e c te d a t th e p la in tif f , . . . [ . H o w e v e r ,] w e h a v e n o t h e ld tha ts uc h c om m e nt s c a n ne ve rc ons t i tut e c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of7

di sc ri m i nat i on . ” R oss v . R ho des Furni ture, Inc. , 14 6 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i tt e d ) . Wh e n ar a c i a l c o m m e n ti s p r o v i d e d a s e v i d e n c e , we e xa m i ne w he the rthe c om m e nt“ w he n r e a d i n c onj unc t i on w i th the e nt i r e r e c or d, [i s] ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of tho se deci si on m aker s’ di sc ri m i nat ory a tt i tud e. If s o , th e c o u r t m u s t th e n d e te rm in e w h e th e rs u c h c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , a lo n g w ith o th er ev i d en ce . . . , m i g h tl ead a reaso n ab l e j u ry t o d i sb el i ev e [th e em p l o yer’ s] proffe re d rea son for [notprom ot i ng the em pl oyee ] . ” I d. a t1292. W hi l e the us e of

“ bo y” w hen m od i fi ed by a r ac i al cl as si fi ca t i on l i ke “ bl ac k” or “ w hi t e” i s e vi dence o f d is c r im in a to ry in te n t, se e B r o w n in gv . P r e s ide n t R iv e r b o a t C a s in o -Mis s o u r i, Inc. , 1 3 9 F . 3 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 5 (8 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (i n d i cat i n g th atth e u se o f “ th atw h i t e b o y” w as evi dence of a di sc ri m i nat ory a tt i tud e) , the use of “ bo y” al on e i s notevi dence o f d is c r im in a tio n . See R u b y v . S p r in g fie ld R - 1 2 P u b lic Sc h o o l D is t. , 76 F . 3d 909, 9 1 2 ( 8 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o ld in g th a t r e f e rr in g to th e ap p e lla n t a s “b o y ” a n d c o m m e n ts abou tcl othi ng and b l ac ks com m i tt i ng m ore c ri m es w er e notevi dence of pret ext ); B onne rv . H

om e D e pot , 3 2 3 F .S u p p .2 d 1 2 5 0 , 1 2 5 8 - 5 9 ( S .D . A la . 2 0 0 4 ) , af f’d , N o. 0 4 -1 2 8 8 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (fi n d i n g th ata si n g l e referen ce t o a p l ai n t i ff as “ b o y” w as no tevi dence of pret ext ). W e have not ed that“ [s ] t andi ng al on e, devi at i on fr om a c om pany po l i cydo es no tdem on stra t e di sc ri m i nat ory a ni m us. ” Mi tc he l l v . U SB I C o. , 186 F . 3d 1352,8

13 55 -56 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). H ow ever , w e have al so ob se rved that de vi a t i on f

r om c om pa ny pol i c y c a n be c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on, es peci al l y w here the rul es w er e bentor brok en t o g i ve a non -m i no ri ty app l i ca ntan a d v a n ta g e . See C ar te rv . T hr e e Spr i ngs R e s i de nt i al T r e atm e nt , 132 F . 3d 635, 644 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; se e a l

so B er g v. Fla. D ept . of

L ab or an d E m

pl oym ent

Sec. , D i v. of V oc at i onal

R e hab. , 16 3 F . 3d 12 51 , 12 55 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( sugg es t i ng that fa i l ure t o adh er e t o o r i ncon si st entappl i ca t i on of po l i ci es m aybe ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of di sc ri m i nat i on w here there i s ashow i ng thatthe po l i ci es w er e app l i ed t o othe r s ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , apl a i nt i f f’ s s how i ng tha ta n e m pl oy e r ’ s r e a s on f ornot fol l ow i ng a c om pany po l i cyw as pret extual do es no tes t abl i sh i nt ent i on al d is c r im in a tio n w ith o u t af in d in g th a t th e e m p lo y e ra c te d b e c a u s e o f r a c e . See C lark v . H

un t sv i l l e C i t y B d. of E du c. , 71 7 F . 2d 52 5, 52 8 (11 th C i r. 19 83 ). F i na l l y , w e ha ve i ndi c a t e d tha tthe i s s ue i n di s c r i m i na t i on c a s e s i s not w h e th e ro n e e m p lo y e e is b e tte rq u a lif ie d th a n a n o th e rb e c a u s e w e d o n o t s it in ju d g m e n t o f

a n e m p lo y e r ’s d e c is io n . See C oope rv . Southe r n C o. , 390 F . 3d 695, 732 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . A s ar e s ul t , “ [ i ] n af a i l ur e t o pr om ot e c a s e , apl a i nt i f f c a nnot prov e pre t extby si m pl y s ho w i ng that[] he w as bett erqu al i fi ed than the i nd i vi du al w ho re ce i ved the po si t i on that[] he w ant ed. ” See L ee v. G T EFlori da , Inc. , 226 F . 3d 1249, 1253 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . P r e t e xtc a n be e s t abl i s he d thr ough9

c om pa r i ng qua l i f

i c a t i ons onl y w he n “ the di s pa r i ty i n qua l i f i c a t i ons i s s o appa r e nt as vi rtual l y t o j um p o ff

the page and sl ap you i n the fa ce . ” C oo per , 39 0 F . 3d at 732 ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . H ow e ve r , a n e m pl oy e e ’ s s how i ng tha tthe e m pl oy e rhi r e d al e s s qua l i f i e d c a ndi da t e i s pr oba t i ve of w he the rthe e m p lo y e r ’s r e a s o n is p r e te x tu a l, b u t n o t p r o o f o f p r e te x t. L ee , 226 F . 3d a t1253. A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d i n the pr e s e ntc a s e , w e c onc l ude tha tA s h di d not pres entsuff

i ci entevi dence for are as on abl e j ury t o fi nd thatT ys on di sc ri m i nat ed agai nsthi m because non e of the evi dence appl i cabl e t o h i s c l ai m s e st abl i shes di s c r i m i na t i on. H ow e ve r , w e c onc l ude tha tH i thon pr e s e nt e d as uf f i c i e ntc a s e of di sc ri m i nat i on because he dem on stra t ed thatH at l eyi nt ervi ew ed hi m af t erH at l ey ha d a l r e a dy hi r e d K i ng, i ndi c a t i ng tha tH a t l e y ’ s s t a t e d r e a s ons f orr e j e c t i ng H i thon – h i s l ac k o f acol l ege degree , hi s posi t i on as a m anager a ta f i nanci al l y troub l ed p la n t, a n d h is la c k o f

e x p e r ie n c e o u ts id e o f

th e G a d s e n p la n t –w e r e p r e te x tu a l. T h i s ev i d en ce o f p ret ex tal o n g w i th H i th o n ’ s p r i ma fa c ie c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on w as su ffi ci en tfo r th e j u ry t o d eci d e w h eth er T yso n d i scri m i n at ed . A cco rd i n g l y, w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng T y s on’ s m ot i on f or j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w on A s h’ s c l a i m s , butthe c our te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng the m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en tas a m att er o f l aw o n H i th o n ’ s cl ai m s. B . N e w T r i al10

B ec ause the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g ra nt i ng j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw i n f a vorof T y s on on A s h’ s c l a i m s , the i s s ue of w he the rthe c our ts houl d ha ve a l t e rna t i ve l y gr a nt e d ane w tr i a l i s m ootf orA s h. H ow e ve r , be c a us e w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng am ot i on f orj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w on H i tho n’ s c l ai m s, w e turn t o h i s app ea l of the di stri ctcourt ’ s a l t ernat i ve grantof a n e w tr ia l. O n ap p e a l, H ith o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in a lte rn a tiv e ly gr a nt i ng T y s on’ s m ot i on f orane w tr i a l be c a us e : ( 1) the c our t ’ s or de rpr ovi de d no ba s i s f ori t s de c i s i on, m a ki ng i ti m pos s i bl e f orhi m t o appe a l s pe c i f

i c gr ounds f

or th e d ec isio n o r to allo w itto b e r ev iew ed at th e a p p ellate lev el; (2 ) th e c o u rt’s deci si on thatthe ra t i o b etw ee n the pu ni t i ve and com pensat ory dam ages aw ar ds w as pr e m a tur e a s the c our tf a i l e d t o de t e rm i ne ba c k pa y a nd a tt orne y ’ s f e e s ; a nd ( 3) he pres ent ed suff

i ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe j ury’ s a w ar d o f c om pensat ory d am ag es . A lso , H ith o n ad o p ts h is d istrict co u rt b rief , co n testin g th e d istrict co u rt’s d e c is io n to g r a n t an e w tr ia l. 1 . Stan da rd of

R ev i ew W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f an e w tr ia l f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . F. D . I . C . v . Stahl , 89 F . 3d 1510, 1514 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . I n e m pl oy i ng the abus e of d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d f

o rg r a n tin g n e w tr ia ls , w e u s e am o r e s tr in g e n t ap p r o a c h . I d.In Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 a dopte d a s b indingpre c e dent t hede c isi on s o f t

hefo rm er F if

th C ircuit ha nde d down p ri or

to October 1, 1981. 11 T he di s tr i c tc our t“ s houl d gr a ntam ot i on f orane w tr i a l w he n th e v e r d ic t is a g a in s t th e c le a rw e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e o rw ill r e s u lt in a m i sc arri age of j ust i ce , even tho ug h there m aybe subst ant i al ev i d en ce w h i ch w o u l d p rev en tth e d i rect i o n o f a v erd i ct . . . . B ecau se i ti s c r i t i c a l tha taj udge doe s notm e r e l y s ubs t i tut e hi s j udgm e ntf or thatof the j ury, new tri al s s ho ul d n otbe grant ed on evi dent i ary gr ounds unl e s s , a tam i ni m um , the ve r di c ti s a ga i ns tthe gr e a t - - not m e r e ly th e g r e a te r - - w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e .” L i pp ha rdt v. D uran go St eakhou se of B randon , Inc. , 2 6 7 F .3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s a nd qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). 2 . P un i t i ve D am ag es

“ [P ] un i t i ve dam ages ‘ ar e a w ar ded sol el y t o p un i sh defe nd ant s a nd det er future w rong do i ng . ’ ” U . S. E . E . O . C . v. W

&O , Inc. , 21 3 F . 3d 60 0, 61 6 (11 th C i r. 2000) ( quot i ng W

a lte rs v . C ity o

f A tla n ta , 8 0 3 F .2 d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a r e a v a ilab le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 1 . See C lai bo rne v . I l l i n o is Ce n t . R. R. , 58 3 F . 2d 14 3, 15 4 (5th C i r. 19 78 ); se e a l so John son v. 1 R ai lw ay E

xpress A gency, Inc. , 421 U . S . a t460, 95 S . C t . a t1720 ( s t a t i ng i n di c tum thatpu ni t i ves a re avai l abl e i n § 19 81 ac t i on s) . U nd erT i t l e V II , pu ni t i ve dam ages ar e a l so avai l abl e i f the pl ai nt i ff show s the em pl oyer“ engaged i n a di sc ri m i nat ory pr a c t i c e ordi s c r i m i na t ory pr a c t i c e s w i th m a l i c e orw i th r e c kl e s s i ndi f f e r e nc e t o the12

fe dera l l y prot ec t ed ri gh t s of a n agg ri eved i nd i vi du al . ” See 4 2 U . S. C. § 1981a ( b) ( 1) . H ow e ve r , w he r e apl a i nt i f f ha s both T i t l e V I I a nd 42 U . S . C . § 1981 di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m s, the pl ai nt i ff i s notconstra i ned b y the dam age c aps und er T itle V I I a n d m a y r e c o v e ru n d e r§ 1 9 8 1 . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 a ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 4 ) . “[ A ]n y c a s e la w c o n s tru in g th e p u n itiv e d a m a g e s s ta n d a r d s e t f o r th in § 1 9 8 1 a. . . is e q u a lly ap p lic ab le to c la r if y th e c o m m o n la w p u n itiv e d a m a g e s s ta n d a r d w ith re spec tt o a § 1 98 1 cl ai m . ” See L ow er y v . C i rc ui t

C i t y Stores , Inc. , 206 F . 3d 431, 4 4 1 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . A s are sul t , pu ni t i ve dam ages ar e a vai l abl e und er42 U . S . C . § 1 98 1 w hen an

“ em pl oyerhas e ng aged i n i nt ent i on al di sc ri m i nat i on and h as do ne so w i th m al i ce or w i th rec kl es s i nd i ff

er ence t o the fe dera l l y prot ec t ed ri gh t s of a n agg ri eved i nd i vi du al . ” Kol

stadv. A m er i can D entalA ss ’n , 5 2 7 U .S . 5 2 6 , 5 2 9 - 3 0 , 1 1 9 S .C t. 2 1 1 8 , 2 1 2 2 , 1 4 4 L . E d . 2 d 4 9 4 (1 9 9 9 ) (q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ ‘ [M ] al i ce’ o r ‘ reck l ess i ndi f f e r e nc e ’ pe r t a i n t o the e m pl oy e r ’ s know l e dge tha ti tm a y be a c t i ng i n vi ol a t i on of fe dera l l aw , no ti t s a w ar enes s thati ti s e ng agi ng i n d i sc ri m i nat i on . ” I d. a t535, 119 S . C t . a t2124. “ M a l i c e m e a ns ‘ a n i nt e ntt o ha rm ’ a nd r e c kl e s s ne s s m e a ns

‘ se ri ou s di sr egar d for the consequences of [ on e’ s] ac t i on s. ’ ” U . S. E . E . O . C . v. W &O , Inc. , 21 3 F . 3d at61 1 (ci t at i on om i tt ed) ( al t er at i on i n o ri gi nal ). Int ent i on al di s c r i m i na t i on w i l l notr i s e t o the l e ve l of m a l i c i ous ne s s orr e c kl e s s ne s s w he r e the13

e m pl oy e r : ( 1) i s “ una w a r e of the r e l e va ntf

e de r a l pr ohi bi t i on” ; or (2) “ di sc ri m i nat es w i th the di st i nctbel i ef thati t s di sc ri m i nat i on i s l aw ful . ” Kol s tad , 527 U . S . a t536- 37, 119 S . C t . a t2125. A pl a i nt i f f doe s notha ve t o s how e gr e gi ous ne s s oroutr a ge ous di s c r i m i na t i on t o pr ove puni t i ve da m a ge s a l though th is is o n e f

o rm o f p r o o f . I d. a t538- 39, 119 S . C t . a t2126. N otonl y m us tthe p la in tif f s h o w m a lic io u s n e s s o rr e c k le s s n e s s , b u t h e m u s t a ls o im p u te liab ility to th e e m p lo y e r . I

d. at53 9, 11 9 S . C t . at21 26 . T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thatan em pl oyerw i l l no tbe hel d l i abl e f or pu ni t i ve dam ages w here “ the di sc ri m i nat ory em p lo ym en t d ec isio n s o f m an ag er ial ag en ts . . . are co n trar y to th e e m p lo ye r’s go od -f ai th eff ort s t o com pl y w i th [42 U . S . C . § 1 98 1] . ” See i d. at54 5, 11 9 S . C t . at 2 1 2 9 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n th e ab s e n c e o f e v id e n c e o f

ag o o d - f a ith e f f o r t to c om pl y w i th § 1981, a n e m pl oy e rw i l l be l i abl e f ora c t i ons of

i t s a ge ntw he n the agentse rved the em pl oyeri n a m anageri al capaci ty a nd com m i tt ed the i nt ent i on al d is c r im in a tio n a t is s u e w h ile a c tin g in th e s c o p e o f e m p lo y m e n t. See i d. a t542- 43, 1 1 9 S .C t. a t 2 1 2 8 . A s in itia l m a tte r s , w e f

ir s t c o n c lu d e th a t H ith o n f ir s t c a n n o t a d o p t a r g u m e n ts f r o m h is d is tr ic t c o u r t b r ie f c o n te s tin g T y s o n ’s m o tio n f o ran e w tr ia l. See Four Se a s o n s Ho te l

s a n d Res o r t s , B. V. v . Co n s o r c i o Ba r rS. A. , 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 7 n .4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “r e

je c t[ in g ] th e p r a c tic e o f in c o rp o r a tin g b yr e f

e r e n c e a r g u m e n ts14

m a de t o di s tr i c tc our t s , a nd . . . hol d[ i ng] tha t[ the appe l l a nt ] . . . w a i ve d the ar g u m en ts ith a[ d ] n o t p ro p er ly p re se n ted fo r r ev iew ”) . S ec o n d , H ith o n ’s ar gu m entthatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o g i ve re as on s f or i t s dec i si on t o g ra nta new tri al as re qu i re d b y F ed. R . C i v. P . 50 (c ) i s w i tho utm er i tbecause the courtst at ed i t s r e a s ons by de t e rm i ni ng tha tthe c om pe ns a t ory a nd puni t i ve da m a ge s a w a r ds w e r e “ a ga i ns tthe gr e a tw e i ghtof the e vi de nc e a nd [ w e r e ] outr a ge ous l y e xc e s s i ve a n d s h o c k in g to th e ju d ic ia l c o n s c ie n c e .” W e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n gr a nt i ng a new tri al on the basi s of the j ury’ s pun i t i ve dam ages aw ar d b ec ause the evi dence w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a n a w a r d o f p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a s H ith o n h a s f a ile d to pres entany e vi dence thatH at l eykn ew he w as vi ol at i ng fe dera l l aw w hen h e f ai l ed t o p rom ot e H i tho n. M oreover, because H i tho n fai l ed t o est abl i sh thatH at l eyac t ed w i th m a l i c e orr e c kl e s s i ndi f f e r e nc e t o hi s f

e de r a l r i ght s , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng ane w tr i a l on the puni t i ve da m a ge s a w a r d. 3 . C om pensat ory D am ag es T h is c o u r t h a s s ta te d th a t “[ a ]lth o u g h c o m p e n s ab le d a m a g e m u s t b e p r o v e n , .

. . ge ne r a l c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s , a s oppos e d t o s pe c i a l da m a ge s , ne e d notbe prov en w i th a hi gh degree of s peci fi ci ty. ” Ferri l l v. P arke r G roup , Inc. , 168 F . 3d 468, 476 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . “ C om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s m a y be i nf e rr e d f r om the15

c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” o rp r o v e n th r o u g h te s tim o n y . I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . E vi de nt i a ry s hor t c om i ngs go t o the a m ountof l os s , nott o the i s s ue of d a m a g e s . I

d. U nd er§ 1 98 1, com pensat ory dam ages encom pass : (1) e m ot i on al ha rm s s uc h a s hum i l i a t i on a nd i ns ul t ; ( 2) i nt a ngi bl e , ps y c hol ogi c a l i nj ur i e s ; or ( 3 ) f in a n c ia l, p r o p e r ty , o rp h y s ic a l h a rm s . I d. ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he r e i s no re qu i re m entthatem ot i on al dam ages be prov en throu gh m edi ca l evi dence or expert te s tim o n y . See Ki m v . N as h F i nc h C o. , 123 F . 3d 1046, 1065 ( 8th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng tha t“ m e di c a l orothe re xpe r te vi de nc e w a s notr e qui r e d t o pr ove em ot i on al di stre ss and thatthere w as suff i ci entevi dence of emo t i on al di stre ss ”) (per suas i ve autho ri ty) . A ft er rev i ew i n g th e reco rd , w e co n cl u d e th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s di sc re t i on i n g ra nt i ng the m ot i on for anew tri al on the com pensat ory dam ages aw ar d b ec au se H ith o n p ro v id ed in su b stan ti al ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s a w a r d . F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof j ud gm entas am a tt e rof

l a w i n f a vorof T y s on on A s h’ s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s . W e r e ve r s e the d istrict co u rt’s g ra n t o f ju d g m en t as a m atter o f law in fa v o r T ys o n o n H ith o n ’s di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m s. H ow everw i th res pectt o H i tho n, w e a ff i rm the di stri ct c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o a l t e rna t i ve l y gr a ntane w tr i a l be c a us e the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt16

evi dence t o sup po rtthe j ury’ s pun i t i ve dam ages aw ar d and the com pensat ory d a m a g e s a w a r d w a s e x c e s s iv e . W e r e m a n d th is c a s e f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c onduc tf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.