N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

R OB ER T C HR ISTOPHER ; JANET STR ATTON-C H R ISTOPHER , Pla intiffs - Appe lla nts,

v. SPEC T R A ELEC TR IC AL SER

VIC ES, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e
. No. 14-15244
D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00345-DGC

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Da v id G. C a m

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : SILVER

M AN, FISHER , a

nd TALLM A

N, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs R obe rt C hristophe r, a n e le c tric ia n pre viously e m

ploy e d by D e fe nda

nt Spe c tra Ele c tric a l Se rvic e s, Inc ., a nd his wife, J an e Stra tton-C hristophe r file d a n

a c tion unde r Title V II of the C ivil R ight s A ct , 4 2 U

. S.C

. § 2000e , a nd 42 U.S.C

. 

# FIL ED

FEB 22 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.§ 1981, se e king c om pe nsa t ory a nd punitive da m a ge s for a n a l le ge d h ostil e work

e nvironm e nt a nd re ta lia

tion. T he y a

ppe a l the distric t c o u rt’ s gra nt of pa rtia l sum m a ry judgm e nt to Spe c tra dism issing the i r re que st for punitive da m a ge s. The y a lso a ppe a l
the distric t c ourt’ s m id

- t r ia l de nia l of t he ir ora l m otion to re c onside r t he sum m a ry judgm e nt orde r. The jury split its ve rdic t, finding for the C hristophe rs on the ir hostile
work e nvironm e nt c la im , a nd for Spe c tra on the re ta lia tion c la im

. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C

. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

. Spe c tra w a s lia

ble for punitive da m a g e s only if it a c te d with “ m a lic e or re c kle ss indiffe re nc e ” to M r. C hristophe r’ s fe de ra lly prote c te d rights. 42 U.S.C

. § 1981a (b)(1). “ M a lic e ” a nd “ re c kle ss indiffe re nc e ” pe rta i n t o a n e m ploy e r’ s

“ knowle dge tha

t it m a y be a c ting in viola

tion of fe de ra l la

w, not its a wa re ne ss tha t it
is e nga ging in a c tua l disc rim ina tion.” K olstad v
. A m. De ntal Ass’n , 5 27 U.S. 526, 535 (1999). In othe r words, Spe c tra “ m ust a t le a st disc rim ina te in the fa c e of a pe rc e ive d
risk tha t its a c tions will viola te fe de ra l la

w t o b e lia

b le i n punitive da m a ge s.” Id. a t 536. The re fore , the foc us is on Spe c tra ’ s sta t e of m ind. Id . a t 535.
1. At the ou ts et , w e re

j e c t t he C hristophe rs’ a rgum e nt tha t t he d i stric t c ourt
ap p lie d the wrong rule of la w. The c ourt c orre c tly re l ie d on K o lstad , an d n ev er

m issta te d the gove rning la

w nor a pplie d a n e rrone ous le g a l sta

nda rd.

22. Spe c t ra ’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to inve s tiga te or ta ke re m e d ia l a c tion a fte r re c e iving
M r. C hristophe r’s Ch ar g e of Disc rim ina tion – whe n he w a s no longe r e m ploy e d a t Spe c tra – doe s not ra ise a t ria ble issue on punitive da m a ge s lia bility

. Eve n a ssum ing Spe c tra w a s re quire d to ta ke som e a c tion to de te r h a ra ssm e nt by othe r e m p loy e e s, the
C hristophe rs ha

ve pointe d to n o on-point a uthority sta

ting the fa ilure to do so m e a nt Spe c tra ha d viola

te d M r. C hristophe r’ s fe de ra lly prote c t e d ri g ht s
. B e c a use the
C hristophe rs’ unde rly ing the ory of disc rim ina tion is the re fore “ nove l o r othe rwise poorly re c ogniz e d,” id. a t 5 37, Spe c tra ’ s a l le ge d fa ilure to ta ke a c tion c a n not show the

re quisite sta

te o f m ind re quire d unde r § 1981a (b)(1) a nd K olstad to justify a n a wa rd of punitive da m a ge s. 3. Spe c t ra ’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to e nforc e its a n ti-disc rim ina tion polic ie s sim ila rly

c a nnot, on its own, subje c t Spe c tra to punitive da m a ge s. Spe c t ra ’s dilige nc e in
im ple m e nting its a nti-disc rim ina tion polic i es i s re le v a n t to de fe nd a c h a rge tha t Spe c tra is v ic a riously l ia

ble for pu n it i ve d a

m a ge s d u e to a supe rvisor’ s a c tions. Se e
i d. a t 544-46. B ut the distric t c ourt obse rve d tha t the C hristophe rs ha d not a rgue d Spe c tra w a s vic a riously lia ble for punitive da m a ge s, a nd t he C hristophe rs ide ntify n o

e rror in tha t c onc lusion. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the g r ant of pa rtia l sum m a ry judgm e nt to Spe c t

ra on the C hristophe rs’ c la i m for punitive da m a ge s.

34. At ora l a rgum e nt, the C hristophe rs a ba ndone d a ny c ha lle n ge t o the distric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of th ei r m i d -tria l m otion to re c onside r the sum m a ry judgm e nt orde r. Ke e ping i n m ind our “ re vie w is lim ite d to the re c ord pre se n te d to the distric t c ourt a t the tim e ” of its d e c i sion, we find n o er r o r i n t he d e nia l of re c onside ra tion. Lippi v
. C ity Bank , 955 F.2d 599, 604 (9th C ir. 1992).
5. W e ne e d not a d dre ss w he the r t he distric t c ourt e rre d in re fusing to provide
the j ury with a punitive da m a ge s instruc tion. B e c a u se the C hristophe rs did not ra ise
t h e i s s u e in the ir ope n ing brie f, it is wa ive d. Se e Av ila v
. Los Ange le s Polic e D ep ’ t , 758 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th C ir. 2014).
AFFIRM E D.

4