N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SAM I M ITR I, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. W ALGR EEN C O., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-17580

D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00538-AW ISKO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 5, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , M c K EOW N , C irc uit Judge and KENDALL, ** Distric t Judge
. W a lgre e n C o. (“ W a lgre e ns” ) a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of W a lgre e ns’ re ne we d m otion for judgm e nt a s a m a tte r of la

w , c ha lle nging both the suffic i e nc y

of the e v ide nc e to uphold, a nd the c onstitutiona

l ity of, the jury ’ s 

# FIL ED SEP 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Virginia

M . Ke nda l l, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa t ion.punitive dam a g e s a ward. W e re vie w de nov o the de nia l of a re ne we d m otion for judgm e nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w a nd whe the r a

punitivedam a ge s a

ward c om p orts with due proc e ss. Bains LLC

v . Arc o Prods. C

o. , 405 F.3d 764, 770, 775 (9th C ir. 2005). “ A jury ’ s ve rdic t m ust be uphe ld if it is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , whic h is e vide nc e a d e quat e to support the jury ’ s c onc lusion, e ve n if it is a lso possible to dra

w a c ontra ry c onc lusion.” Pav ao v . Pagay , 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th C ir. 2002). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd a ffirm in pa

rt,
va c a te in pa

rt, a nd re m and. I Vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora b le to the pla i ntiff, the re wa s suffic i e nt e vide nc e for the jury to c onc lude tha t a m ana ging c orpora te a ge nt ratifie d the w rongful e m

p loy e e c onduc t. Se e Stre e t Sc e ne s LLC v . ITC Entm’t Grp., Inc
. , 103 C a l. App. 4th 233, 242 (C a l. C t. App. 2002) (sta ting tha t ra t ific a tion m ay

be
e sta blishe d by c irc um sta

ntia l e v ide n c e ); se e also C a l. C iv. C ode § 3294(b) (lim iting e m

ploy e r lia bility for punitive dam a g e s to c a se s whe re a m ana ging a ge nt

“ a u thoriz e d or ra tifie d ” an e m ploy e e ’ s oppre s sive , fra

udule n t, or m a lic ious
c onduc t). The re wa s e v i de nc e tha t W a lgre e ns e m

ploy e e s a pproa c he d the
m ana ging a ge nt a

n d sought his a

pprova l be fore te rm inating M itri. Gre e nfie ld v

. Spe c trum Inv . C

orp. , 174 C a l. App. 3d 111, 119 (C a l. C t. App. 1985), ov e rrule d in
2part on othe r grounds by Lak in v . W atk ins Assoc iate d Indus. , 863 P.2d 179 (C a l. 1993). The re wa s e vide nc e that the m ana ging a ge nt wa s a ware tha t M itri be ga

n
e xpe rie nc ing a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tions, e ve ntua lly re sulting in his te rm ination, im m e diate ly a fte r M itri first re porte d

pote ntia l billing fra

ud. S e e Be ll v . C

l ac k amas C ty
. , 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Te m pora l proxim ity

be t we e n prote c te d
a c tivity and a

n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion c an by

itse lf c onstitute

suffic ie nt
c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e of re ta lia

tion in som e c a se s.” ). The m ana ging a ge nt wa s involve d in te rm ination disc ussions. Thus, with the e vide nc e vie we d

in the light
m ost fa vora ble to M itri, the re wa s suffic i e nt e vide nc e to support a finding of
ra tific a tion. II The jury awarde d M itri $88,000 in e c onom ic dam a ge s a nd $1.155 mi llion in punitive dam a g e s, a

n a p proxim a te ly

13 to 1 da

m a ge s ra tio. Thre e “ guide posts” inform our a na ly sis of the c onstitutiona lity of tha t punitive dam a g e s a

ward: (1) the de gre e of re pre he nsibility , (2) the dispa rity be twe e n the ha rm suffe re d a

nd the punitive dam a g e s a

ward, a nd (3) the diffe re nc e be twe e n the punitivedam a ge s
award and c o m

pa ra ble a u t horiz e d c i vil pe na ltie s . BMW of N . Am. v . Gore , 517 U.S. 559, 574–75 (1996).

3W a lgre e ns’ c onduc t wa s of low to inte rm e diat e re pre he nsibility
. S e e State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. v . C ampbe ll , 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003) (listing five fa c t ors tha

t inform re pre h e nsibility

ana ly sis). The re wa s no e vide nc e tha t W a lgre e ns e vinc e d indiffe re nc e to the he a lth or sa fe ty of othe rs or e nga ge d in a pa tte rn of wrongful te rm inat i ons. Id. The re wa s no e vide nc e of phy sic a l ha rm . The jury did not a

ward a ny e m otiona l distre ss da

m a ge s. Howe ve r, the jury
c onc lude d tha

t W a lgre e ns ha d wrongfully te rm i na te d M itri in re ta lia tion for
re porting pote ntia l M e dic a re fra ud a nd a rgua bly pla c e d him

in a fina nc ia lly vulne ra ble position. Planne d Pare nthood v . Am. C oal. of Life

Ac tiv i sts , 422 F.3d 949, 958–59 (9th C ir. 2005) (re a soning tha t phy sic ia ns we re fina

nc ia l ly vulne ra ble be c a use the ir “ live lihoods de

pe nde d upon the i r pra c tic e s” ). The dispa rity be t we e n the de gre e of ha

rm and the le ve l of punitive

dam a ge s is substa n tia l. The 13 to 1 da

m a ge s ra tio is thus e xc e ssive . If, a s in this c a s e , the re
are s ignific ant e c onom ic dam a ge s a nd the be hav i or is not highly re pre h e nsible , the n “ a ra tio of up to 4 to 1 se

rve s a s a good proxy

for the lim its of
c onstitutiona

lity .” Planne d Pare nthood , 422 F.3d a

t 962; se e also Bains , 405 F.3d
a t 776 (c onc luding tha

t e c o n om ic dam a ge s of $50,000 we re “ substa ntia l ” ). In C a lifornia , the m a xim

um c om p ara ble c ivil pe n a lty

is $10,000 pe r viola tion. C a l. La

bor C ode § 1102.5(f) (re ta lia tion for re porting nonc o m plia nc e
4with la

w). A $10,000 sa

nc t ion indic a te s tha

t C a lifornia

“ be lie ve [s] that substa

ntia l
sa nc tions [a re ] a

ppropria te to de te r” unla

w ful re ta lia

tion a ga inst whistle

blowe rs. Planne d Pare n thood, 422 F.3d a t 963. None the le ss, the $1.155 m illion punitive dam a ge s a

ward is signific antly

gre at e r tha

n the a u t horiz e d $10,000 c ivil pe na lty
. Se e S tate Farm , 538 U.S. a

t 428 (c onc luding tha

t $145 m illion punitive dam a ge s
award “ dwa

rfe d” c om pa ra ble c i vil pe na ltie s of $10,000). In sum , the thre e guide posts sugge st tha t the punitivedam a ge s a

ward in this
c a se is e xc e ssive . A single -digit ra tio be t we e n punitiveand c om

p e nsatory dam a ge s would, howe ve r, c om port with due

proc e ss. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt ha s a lre a d y re vie we d the c onstitutiona lity of the punitivedam a ge s a ward, we re m it the a ward ra the r tha

n re m anding for the distric t c ourt to do so. Planne d Pare nthood

, 422 F.3d a

t 963. C onsiste nt with the guida nc e of Planne d Pare nthood

, we c onc lude tha

t, give n the substa

n tia l c om pe nsatory dam a ge s, the low to inte rm e diate re pre h e nsibility of c onduc t, a

nd C a l ifornia ’ s inte re st in de te rring wrongful te rm inations, a 4 to 1 da m a ge s ra tio c om

p orts with due

proc e ss. W e the re fore re m it the punitivedam a ge s a ward to $352,000, a

nd re m and for the distric t c o urt to orde r a

ne w tria l if M i tri de c l ine s to a c c e pts this C ourt’ s re m ittitur. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts. AFFIRM E D IN PART , V ACAT E D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.
5