# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 0 8- 37 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Tarek Al-B ire kd ar

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ch ry sl er Gro up , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 0 9- 10 91

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Tarek Al-B ire kd ar

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ch ry sl er Gro up , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Daim le rCh ry sl er Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 12 Fil ed : M arch 11 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ch ry s l e r G r ou p, LLC (Ch ry sl er) ap pe al s an ad ve rs e jury ve rd ic t in fav or of Tarek Al-B ire kd ar on a ret al ia t i o n c l ai m un de r th e Mi ss ou ri Hum an Ri gh ts Act (MHRA)

. Al-B ire kd ar cro ss -ap pe al s, cl ai m in g th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y gr an te d 1

a m ot io n fo r di rect ed ve rd ic t on a pu ni ti ve -d am ag es cl ai m an d im pr op erl y red uc ed th e
at to rn ey ’s fee award

. W e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t bu t rem an d fo r th e 2
di st ric t co ur t's co ns id erat io n of Al-Bi rek da r's req ue st fo r ad di ti on al fees in cu rred in
th e su cces sf

ul de fen se of h is jury ve rd ic t.

I. Bac kg ro un d

Al-B ire kd ar is a Mu sl i m. He be ga n wor ki ng fo r Ch ry sl er at it s au to m ob il e

m an uf act ur in g pl an t in Fen to n, Mi ss ou ri, as a sk il le d- tra de s el ect ric ia n in 20 00

. Ch ry sl er te rm in at ed Al-B ire kd ar in 20 05 fo r ta ki ng an un ap pr ov ed va cat io n in

The Hon or ab le Don al d J . Sto hr , Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t J ud ge for th e Eas te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Al-B ire kd ar al so arg ue d in hi s br ie fs th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ex cl ud in g 2

e v i de nc e reg ard in g th e tre at m en t of two ot he r em pl oyees who Al-B ire kd ar al le ge s
were si m il arl y si tu at ed

. Howev er, Al-B ire kd ar ab an do ne d th is c l a i m a t or al arg um en t, an d we typic al ly d o no t ad dr es s ab an do ne d cl ai m s. See Uni te d St at es v. Ja ni s, 5 56 F.3d 89 4, 8 99 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

. -2

-vi ol at io n of a fiv e-d ay le av e po li cy

. Al-B ire kd ar su bs eq ue nt l y su ed Ch ry sl er,

cl ai m in g d is cri m in at io n a nd ret al ia ti on un de r th e MHRA. 3

At tri al
, Al-B ire kd a r pr es en te d ev id en ce to po rtr ay th e pl an t as a ge ne ral ly ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t

. H e a l le ge d th e ho st il e tre at m en t st art ed al m os t i mm e d ia te ly aft er he be ga n wor ki ng , m os tl y du e to m is tre at m en t by two of h i s

su pe rv is o rs : Sh or na Co ffey an d Ed Sch oo no ve r. As to th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m , AlBi rek da r arg ue d t h a t Ch ry sl er te rm in at ed hi m in ret al ia ti on fo r a pr ev io us ly fil ed ch arg e of di sc riminat io n wit h th e Mi ss ou ri Co m m is si on on Hum an Ri gh ts (MC HR)

ag ai ns t C h ry sl er. The ev id en ce Al-B ire kd ar pr es en te d at tri al reg ard in g th e ev en ts

su rro un di ng th e ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n a nd hi s t erm in at io n i s d et ai le d b el ow.

A. Ch arg e o f Dis cri m in at io n wi th th e MC HR

In Aug u s t 2 0 0 3
, Al-B ire kd ar us ed fo ul la ng ua ge di rect ed at co -wo rk er Ken
Fran ke nb erg ov er th e wor k rad io

. Al-B ire kd ar us ed t h i s l a n g ua ge in res po ns e to a raci al ly of

fen si ve rem ark by Fran ke nb erg

. Loc al pl an t m an ag em en t pl aced AlBi rek da r on in de fin it e su sp en si on an d i ni ti al ly did no t p un is h F ran ke nb erg

.

Afte r be in g pu t on in de fi ni te su sp en si on , Al-B ire kd ar co m pl ai ne d to Ja n C a rro ll
, hu m an -res ou rces m an ag er at th e pl an t. He to ld Carr ol l ab ou t th e r a c i a l l y of fen si ve rem ark an d co m

pl ai ne d of di sp arat e tre at m en t. Carr ol l i n v es ti ga te d th e in ci de nt

. Al-B ire kd ar te st if i ed th at he pr ov id ed Carr ol l wit h a li st of te n pe op le to in te rv ie w bu t t ha t sh e di d no t in te rv ie w an y of t he m , whi ch Carr ol l d en ie d. Ca rro ll

to ok no act io n ag ai ns t Fran ke nb erg , an d Al-B ire kd ar rem ai ne d on in de fin it e

su sp en si on

.

The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t fo r Ch ry sl er on a di sc riminat io n cl ai m. Al- 3 Bi rek da r do es no t ap pe ar t o c ro ss -ap pe al th is ve rd ic t.

-3

-On Sep te m be r 8, 20 03 , Al -Bi rek da r fil ed a ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n wi th th e MCHR

. In th e ch arg e, Al-B ire kd ar de ta il ed th e si tu at io n su rro un di ng hi s in de fin it e

su sp en si on an d al so al le ge d ge ne ral m is tre at m en t si nc e 20 01

. Afte r Al-B ire kd ar fil ed
th is c ha rg e, Carr ol l co nd uc te d a se co nd in ve st ig at io n. The se co nd in ve st ig at io n

re ve aled th at Fran ke nb erg ha d us ed of fen si ve , di sc riminat or y la ng uage dir ec te d at A lBi rek da r. Fran ke nb erg was su sp en de d fo r th irt y da y s, an d Al-B ire kd ar's su sp en si on

was ch an ge d to th irt y da y s. Bec au se Ch ry sl er pu ni sh ed Fran ke nb erg an d ch an ge d AlB i r e k d ar's pu ni sh m en t, th e MCHR de te rm in ed th at Ch ry sl er ha d rem ed ie d th e si tu at io n a nd fou nd no di sp arat e tr eat m en t.

B. Vacat io n R eq ue st an d Al -Bi rek da r's Term in at io n

Ch ry sl er's va cat io n- req ue st po li cy is go ve rn ed by th e Uni te d Aut o W o r k e r s '

co ll ect iv e-b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t. Acco rd in g to th e ag reem en t, an em pl o yee m us t

su bm it a writ te n va cat io n req ue st

. Howev er, in pr act ic e, Ch ry sl er's va cat io n- req ue st
po li cy is m

uc h m or e in fo rm al

. An em pl oyee can ve rb al ly req ue st pe rm is si on th ro ug h
hi s or he r su pe rv is or , ev en a few da y s in ad va nc e. The su pe rv is or al so ha s au th or it y
to co de an em

pl oyee on va cat io n a fte r th e fac t.

Ro ug hl y ei gh te en m on th s aft er fil in g th e ch arg e, in Mar ch 20 05
, Al-B ire kd ar
req ue st ed va cat io n by su bm it ti ng a writ te n va cat io n req ue st

. On th e ba ck of th e fo rm , Al-B ir e k d a r c i r cl ed th e da te s Ju ne 11 –1 7 as hi s req ue st ed va cat io n pe rio d. On th e fro nt , Al-B ire kd ar m is ta ke nl y req ue st ed va cat io n fo r Ju ly 11 –1 7 r at he r th an Ju ne 11

– 1 7

. Th e va cat io n req ue st was ap pr ov ed fo r Ju ly 11 –1 7. At tri al
, Al-B ire kd ar ad m it te d th at he m ad e a m is ta ke fil li ng ou t th e fo rm bu t st at ed th at he di d no t real iz e th e m is ta ke un ti l h is ter m in at io n.

Aro un d Ju ne 4, Al-B ire kd ar le arn ed th at Co ffey wou ld be co m e hi s su pe rv is or

on Ju ne 6. Al-B ire kd ar to ld Sch oo no ve r, hi s cu rren t su pe rv is or , th at he was go in g on

-4

-v a c a t i o n st art in g Ju ne 11 an d req ue st ed pe rm is si on to wor k a ha lf da y on Ju ne 10

.

Sch oo no ve r as ke d if he ha d a fo rm ap pr ov ed
, an d Al-B ire kd ar st a t e d h e di d. Sch oo no v e r t o l d Al-B ire kd ar th at he ne ed ed Co ffey's pe rm is si on

. On Ju ne 8, AlBi rek da r to ld Co ffey th at he was go in g on ap pr ov ed va cat io n th e ne xt week a nd

wan te d to le av e earl y o n F r i d a y, J un e 10

. Co ffey ap pr ov ed th is req ue st , an d AlBi rek da r to ok a ha lf- da y

on Ju ne 10

.

At th e en d of he r sh ift on Ju ne 1 0
, Co ffey no ti fie d he r su pe rv is or , Edg ar Loa iz a, of Al-B ire kd ar's va cat io n. Loa iz a as ke d Co ff e y t o co nf

irm Al-B ire kd ar's

va cat io n be cau se he di d no t reca ll s e ei ng it on th e sc he du le

. Co ffey cl ai m ed sh e

co ul d no t fin d any reco rd of a va cat io n ap pr ov al fo r Ju ne 11 –1 7. Co ffey al so as ke d Sch oo no ve r whe th er he ap pr ov e d Al-B ire kd ar's va cat io n fo r Ju ne 11 –1 7, whi ch he de ni ed

. Co ffey rep or te d her fin di ng s t o Lo ai za t he ne xt da y . Loai za t ol d C of fey to
rep or t th is in fo rm at io n to Carr ol l. Co ffey em ai le d Carr ol l, ex pl ai ni ng wha t sh e ha d
l e a r n e d s o f

a r, an d as ki ng , "Is th ere an y act io n th at can be ta ke n on th is ? " In

res po ns e, Carr ol l req ue st ed m or e in fo rm at io n an d al so in st ru ct ed th os e in vo lv ed : "Do

no t co de hi m va cat io n, if in de ed he is no t on a n a p p r o v e d va cat io n by y ou r de pa rtment, a nd it wil l b e ad dr es se d u po n h is ret ur n."

Bec au se Al-B ire kd ar was no t co de d as on va cat io n, he au to m at ic al ly reg is te red

as ab se nt w i t h o u t le av e (AW OL) in Ch ry sl er's co m pu te r syste m

. Acco rd in g to th e le av e po li cy , an em

pl oyee is su bjec t to te rm in at io n if he or sh e "i s ab se nt fo r fiv e (5 ) da y s w ith out no ti fy in g th e pl an in acco rd an ce wit h th e pr oc ed ur e es ta bl is he d pu rs ua nt
to Sec. (9 4) of th e Agr eem en t un le ss , fo r a reas on be y on d hi s co nt ro l, he is un ab le to

co m pl y wit h su ch no ti ce req ui rem en ts ." Hen ry Mu raws ki
, a hu m an -re s o u r ces

em pl oyee, ran Al-B ire kd ar's week ly at te nd an ce rep or t an d di sc ov ered he was

c on si de red AW OL. Mu raws ki th en se nt Al-B ire kd ar a writ te n no ti ce o f h i s
te rm in at io n o n J un e 1 8.

-5

-W he n Al-B ire kd ar ret ur ne d fro m va cat io n an d le arn ed o f hi s te rm in at io n, he

fil ed a gr ie va nc e, ap pe al in g hi s te rm in at io n. Ji m Bai ne s, th e un io n st eward in vo lv ed 4
in Al-B ire kd ar's gr ie va nc e cl ai m , te st ifi ed th at whe n he at te m pt ed to ne go ti at e a le sser
pu ni sh m en t, Carr ol l refu se d to rei ns ta te Al-B ire kd ar. Carr ol l st at ed th at th ey wan te d

to "t each [Al- Bi rek da r] a le ss on ." Tom Mi ll er, a C h r y sl er em pl oyee si nc e 19 68
, te st ifi ed th at he was no t aware of an y ot he r s ki ll ed -tr ad es pe rs on ev er be in g
te rm in at ed for all eg ed ly vio la ti ng th e fi ve -d ay lea ve po li cy

.

C. Dam ag es Test im on y

Al-B ire kd ar req ue st ed $1 91 ,00 0 in eco no m ic da m ag es an d a l s o req ue st ed

em ot io na l-d is tre ss da m ag es

. Al-B ire kd ar pr es en te d ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s da m ag es
req ue st th ro ug h hi s own te st im on y , th e te st im on y of hi s wife
, an d th e in tro du ct io n of

va rio us fin an ci al do cu m en ts

. Al-B ire kd ar an d hi s wi fe pr ov id ed a m on et ary fi gu re fo r so m e d am ag es cla im s, b ut no t al l.

The la rg es t po rti on of Al-B ire kd ar's cl ai m fo r da m ag es wa s l o s t w ag es of $1 68 ,79 1.3 0. Al-B ire kd ar int ro du ced hi s W 2s fro m 20 01
, 20 02
, 20 03
, an d 20 04 as

ev id en ce o f hi s yearly inc om e. He th en av erag ed hi s in co m e fro m 20 01 , 2 00 2, an d
20 04
, co m in g up wit h an av erag e m on th ly in co m e of $9 ,92 8.8 9. To cal cu la te hi s 5

to ta l lo st wag es , he m

ul ti pl ie d $9 ,92 8.8 9 by se ve nt een , th e nu m be r of m on th s he was

Al-B ire kd ar d i d n o t cl ai m th at he was te rm in at ed fo r di sc riminat or y or 4

r e t a li at or y reas on s du rin g th e gr ie va nc e pr oc es s. In th e fin al st ep of th e gr i e v a n c e pr oc es s, Ch ry sl er ov ert ur ne d th e te rm in at io n de ci si on

. Al-B ire kd ar was rei ns ta te d in Nov em be r 20 06

.
He di d no t in cl ud e in co m e fro m 20 03 be cau se he di d no t wor k fo r fo ur m on th s 5 du e to a ne ck in

jury, so hi s i nc om e was su bs ta nt ia ll y lo wer.

-6

-no t em

pl oyed by Ch ry sl er. Al-B ire kd ar te st ifi ed th at he ha d a $1 3,3 57 .03 pe na l t y 6
fo r ta ki ng ou t hi s IBEW Loc al 75 6 pe ns io n earl y an d a $7 ,34 5.9 5 ta x pe na lt y fo r an earl y wit hd rawal of hi s Ch ry sl er 40 1( k)

. Al-B ire kd ar al so te st ifi ed th at he ha d ta ke n lo an s fro m hi s wife 's pa ren ts an d fri en ds , to ta li ng ro ug hl y $6 5,0 00 .00 at 5% y earl y in te res t fo r a li tt le ov er two y ears

. Al-B ire kd ar al so cl ai m ed ou t of p o c k e t m ed ic al

ex pe ns es of $1 ,24 4.0 0 du e to lo si ng in su ran ce co ve rag e whe n he was te rm in at ed

. He al so to ok ou t cred it card cas h ad va nc es to ta li ng $5 ,74 8.7 0 a t 6

. 5 7 2 % in te res t. AlBi rek da r di d no t pr es en t ev id en ce of th e am ou nt of in te res t th es e ad va nc es accr ue d.

D. Verd ic t an d M ot io ns

Befo re th e cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury, Ch ry sl er m ov ed fo r jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w (J MOL) on th e di sc riminat io n, ret al ia t io n, an d pu ni ti ve -d am ag es cl ai m s, arg ui ng Al- B i r e k da r ha d no t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th es e cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Ch ry sl er's m ot io n fo r JM OL reg ard i n g AlBi rek da r's pu ni ti ve -d am ag es cla im , bu t d en ie d t he m ot io n a s t o a ll ot he r cl ai m s.

The jury fo un d fo r Ch ry sl er on th e di sc riminat io n c la im an d fo r Al-B ire kd ar

on th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m

. The jury award ed Al-B ire kd ar $1 97 ,00 0 in eco no m ic da m ag es an d $3 ,00 0 in em ot io na l-d is tre ss da m ag es

. Ch ry sl er ren ewed it s m ot io n fo r JM OL and als o fi le d a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, an d t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d b ot h.

Afte r th e ve rd ic t, Al-B ire kd ar's at to rn ey fil ed a m ot io n fo r at to rn ey 's fees

. AlBi rek da r req ue s t e d a n ho ur ly rat e of $3 65 .00 pe r ho ur fo r 47 8.3 ho ur s of wor k,

to ta li ng $1 74 ,57 0.5 0. The di st ric t cou rt lo wered th e ho ur ly rat e to $2 50
, rel y in g on

rece nt at to rn ey 's fee award s fro m th at di st ric t. Nex t, th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed "t he ho ur s co un se l ha s do cu m en te d fo r ad m in is tra ti ve an d m in is te ria l ta sk s (2 6.7 ho ur s)
,

Dur in g hi s se ve nt een m on th s away fro m Ch ry sl er, Al-B ire kd ar di d so m e wor k 6 in Bil ox i, Mi ss is si pp i. His wage s fr om th is job were $ 3,0 77 .20

.
-7

-th e ho ur s do cu m en te d fo r rev ie win g cou rt e-m ai l tran sm is si on s (4.8 ho ur s)
, an d th e

ho ur s do cu m en te d fo r pr ep arat io n of ex te ns io ns of ti m e (1 .6 ho ur s) ." The di st ric t

co ur t rel ie d on lo cal co ur t op in io ns to de te rm in e th at award in g fees fo r th es e ta sk s is
im pr op er.

F in al ly, th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d a "g lo ba l cu t" be cau se it fo un d th at A l

Bi rek da r's ov eral l su cces s in th e cas e was li m it ed

. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed AlBi rek da r's su c c es s was li m it ed be cau se Ch ry sl er ob ta in ed a di rect ed ve rd ic t on th e
pu ni ti ve da m ag es cl ai m an d Al-B ire kd ar di d no t pr ev ai l on al l cl ai m s su bm it te d to th e jury. Fu rth er, the di st ric t cou rt fou nd th at th e un su cces sf ul cl ai m s wer e n ot rel at ed

to th e su cces sf

ul cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t in st it ut ed a 50 % gl ob al cu t of fees
, fin di ng

a gl ob al cu t was an ap pr op ria te m et ho d fo r red uc in g th e fee award in th e ab se nc e of

a " s u p e r i o r m et ho d to ad eq ua te ly pa rs e pl ai nt iff 's bi ll ed ho ur s." The res ul ta nt fee award was $ 55 ,65 0.0 0.

II. Ch ry sl er's Argu m en ts on App eal

Ch ry sl er rai s e s se ve ral arg um en ts on ap pe al : 1) th e jury in st ru ct io n on AlBi rek da r's ret al ia ti on cl ai m was im pr op er, 2) th e di st ri c t c o ur t erre d in de nyin g th e

m ot io n fo r JM OL an d, al te rn at iv el y, t h e m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al
, an d 3) th e jury's da m ag es award is no t su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce. W e ad dr es s each in tu rn an d reject
al l t hr ee ar gu m en ts

.

A. Ju ry

Ins tru ct io n o n R et al ia ti on Cla im

Ch ry sl er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by in st ru ct in g on th e "co nt rib ut in g fact or " st an da rd an d by no t us in g th e ph ras e "d eci si on to di sc ha rg e" in st ead of si m pl y "d is ch arg e." The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e MHRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m as fo ll ows : "Yo ur ve rd ic t m us t be f o r pl ai nt iff on pl ai nt iff

's cl ai m of

. . . ret al ia ti on if

-8

-y ou be li ev e

. . . pl ai nt iff 's fil in g of a pr ev io us ch arg e of di sc riminat io n was a

co nt rib ut in g fa ct or in su ch di sc ha rg e."

W e rev ie w jury in st ru ct io ns fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Tay lo r v. Dor m ire
, 69 0
F.3 d 89 8, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). "A di st ric t c o ur t po ss es se s br oa d di sc ret io n in
in st ru ct in g th e jury, an d jury in st ru ct io ns do no t ne ed to be te ch ni cal ly pe rfec t or ev en

a m od el of c la rit y

. . . . [R]evi ew is li m it ed to whet he r th e jury ins tru ct io ns , tak en as a who le , fai rly and ad eq ua te ly repre se nt th e ev id en ce an d a pp li cab le law i n l ig ht of
th e is su es pr es en te d to th e jury in a pa rti cu la r cas e." Lin de n v. CNH Am
., LLC, 67 3
F.3 d 8 29 , 83 6 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Fi rs t, th e us e of th e co nt rib u t i n g fact or st an da rd was pr op er. W e ex pl ic it ly

st at ed in W al la ce v. DTG Ope rat io ns , In c., th at th e "co nt rib ut in g fact or " st an da rd is
th e pr op er st an da rd fo r MHRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s. 56 3 F.3 d 35 7, 36 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Hil l v. Fo rd Mo to r Co
., 27 7 S.W .3d 65 9 (Mo

. 20 09 )). Nex t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by refu si ng to us e Ch ry sl er's req ue st ed "d eci si on to di sc ha rg e" la ng ua ge

. The ph ras e "p la in ti ff's fil ing of a pr ev io us ch arg e of di sc riminat io n was a co nt rib ut in g fact or in su ch di sc ha rg e" ad eq ua te ly in st ru ct s on th e ap pl ic ab le la w. See Lin de n, 67 3
F.3 d at 83 6. Reg ard le ss , it is un cl ear wha t di ffer en ce us e of t h e l a n g u a g e "i n su ch de ci si on to di sc ha rg e" in st ead of "i n su ch di sc ha r g e " w o ul d m ak e. The refo re, we reject th is cla im

.

B. Su ffi ci en cy

of t he Evi de nc e to Su pp or t t he Verd ic t

Ch ry sl er al so cl ai m s th a t t h e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g it s m ot io ns fo r JM OL an d fo r a ne w tri al

. Bo th m ot i o n s were ba se d on th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce. W e rev ie w de no vo th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r JM O L b as ed on th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce. Po well v. TPI Pet ro le um , I nc ., 5 10 F.3 d 81 8, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). "We m

us t affi rm th e jury's ve rd ic t 'un le ss , vi ew i n g t h e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty, we co nc lu de th at a reas on ab le jury co ul d

-9

-n ot ha ve fo un d fo r th at pa rty.'" Hit e v. Verm eer Mfg

. Co
., 44 6 F.3 d 85 8, 86 5 (8 t h

Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng EEOC v. Koh le r Co
., 3 3 5 F

. 3 d 76 6, 77 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )). "In de c i d i n g whe th er to gr an t jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, we m ay no t weig h th e cred ib il it y of th e ev id en ce, an d co nf li ct s in th e ev id en ce m

us t be res ol ve d in fav or of th e ve rd ic t." S. W in e & Sp iri ts of Nev

. v. Mo un ta in Vall ey Sp rin g Co
., 64 6 F.3 d 52 6, 53 3 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

We r e v i e w t h e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n

. Po well
, 51 0 F.3 d at 82 2. "When th e ba si s of th e m ot io n f o r a n e w t r i al is th at th e jury's ve rd ic t is ag ai ns t th e wei g h t o f th e ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of th e

m ot io n is vi rtu al ly un as sa il ab le on ap pe al ." W as h. So lu ti on s, In c. v. PDQ Mfg
., 39 5 F.3 d 8 88 , 89 2 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

W e ho ld Al-B ire kd ar pr esen te d suff ic ie nt ev id en ce to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t un de r th e MHRA "co nt rib ut in g fact or " sta nd ard . One Ch ry sl er em pl oyee te st ifi ed th at he

co ul d no t rem em

be r a sk il ls -tr ad e pe rs on ev er be in g te rm in at ed fo r vi ol at in g th e fiv eda y lea ve po li cy . Al so , Jan Carr ol l, t he hu m an -res ou rces m an ag er at th e p la nt who

was in vo lv ed wit h Al-B ire kd ar's ch arg e of di sc riminat io n in 20 03
, ex pr es se d a de si re
to te ach Al-B ire kd ar a le ss on du rin g hi s te r mi n a t i on pr oc es s. The jury co ul d ha ve in te rp ret ed Carr ol l's st at em en t as a de si re to ret al ia te ag ai ns t Al-B ire kd ar fo r hi s
pr ev io us ly fil ed ch arg e of di sc riminat io n. W e reco gn iz e t h a t Ch ry sl er pr es en te d a

va li d a l t e r n at iv e rat io na le fo r Al-B ire kd ar's te rm in at io n an d Carr ol l's st at em en t. Howev er, th e jury reject ed th is rat io na le
, an d to rev ers e th e jury's ve r d i ct wou ld
req ui re u s t o v ie w th e ev id en ce i n a li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Ch ry sl er.

C. Dam ag es Award

Ch ry sl er al so ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury's

eco no m ic -d am ag es award

. "[W] e rev ie w da m ag e s a w a rd ed by th e jury fo r

s u f f i ci en cy of th e ev id en ce an d we wil l no t rev ers e a jury ve rd ic t fo r in su ffi ci en t

-1 0-ev id en ce un le ss no reas on ab le juro r co ul d ha ve ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t fo r th e no n- m ov in g

pa rty." Uni te d St at es v. Larr y R e e d & So ns P's hi p, 28 0 F.3 d 12 12
, 12 14 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) ( ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Test im on y reg ard in g th e da m a g e s a mo un t ne ed no t be ex act

. See Co m cas t of Ill

. X v. Mu lt i-Vi si on Elec s., In c., 49 1 F.3 d 93 8, 94 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ("Da m ag es m ay no t be de te rm in ed by m ere
sp ecu la ti on or gu es s, bu t th ey m ay be su bjec t to jus t an d reas on ab l e in fere nc e, al th ou gh th e res ul t be on ly ap pr ox im at e. Onc e li ab il it y ha s be en es ta bl is he d, th e ris k of un cert ai nt y

in cal cu la ti ng da m ag es fal ls up on th e wro ng do er." ( in te rn al cit at io ns

an d q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ).

In th is cas e, th e te st im on y es ta bl is he d an ap pr ox im at e am ou nt of da m ag es

. AlBi rek da r an d hi s wife te st ifi ed sp e c i f ic al ly ab ou t th e am ou nt s pa id fo r earl y wit hd rawal of ret ire m en t fu nd s an d ot he r pa y m en ts

. Al-B ire kd ar al so in tro du ced

va rio us fin an ci al do cu m en ts to su pp or t hi s cl ai m s, in cl ud in g pa st W 2s an d st at em en ts fro m hi s ret ire m en t acco un ts

. W e reco gn iz e th at at ti m es th e ev id en ce pr es en te d

reg ard in g eco no m ic da m ag es was un cl ear. Howev er, be cau se th e da m ag es ne ed on ly be ap pr ox im at e, Al-B ire kd ar's ev id en ce i s s uf fic ie nt

.

III. Al-B ire kd ar's Argu m en ts on Cro ss -Ap pe al

Al-B ire kd ar rai se s two arg um en ts on cro ss ap pe a l : 1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y refu se d to al lo w pu ni ti ve da m ag es to go to th e jury, an d 2 ) t h e di st ric t

co ur t's red uc ti on of th e req ue st ed at to rn ey 's fees was un reas on ab le

. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's refu sa l to su bm it th e pu ni ti ve da m ag es cl ai m to th e jury, bu t we rev ers e th e d is tri ct co ur t's red uc ti on of a tt or ne y 's fe es

.

A. Pu ni ti ve Dam ag es Cla im

Fi rs t, Al-B ire kd ar arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng Ch ry sl er's m ot io n fo r JM OL on hi s p un it iv e-d am ag es cl ai m

. "Un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, p un it iv e d am ag es

-1 1-are . . . av ai la bl e whe n th e de fen da nt 's co nd uc t is 'ou tra ge ou s' du e to ev il m ot iv e o r

reck le s s i n d i ffer en ce to th e rig ht s of ot he rs , an d m us t be pr ov en by cl ear an d

co nv in ci ng ev id en ce." Ro we v. Hus sm an n Co rp ., 38 1 F.3 d 77 5, 78 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Kim zey v. W al -Ma rt St or es , In c., 10 7 F.3 d 5 6 8
, 5 7 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )).
Alt ho ug h th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t t h e ju r y's ve rd ic t

on th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m , th e ev id en ce was n o t s u f fic ie nt to su pp or t a fin di ng th at Ch ry sl er's act io ns were du e to an ev il m ot iv e or reck le ss in di ffer en ce to Al-B ire kd ar's rig ht s. Th eref

or e, th e d is tri ct co ur t di d n ot err i n re fu si ng to su bm it th e q ue st io n o f

pu ni ti ve da m ag es to th e jury.

B. Att or ne y 's Fe e Award

Fi na ll y , Al-Bi rek da r ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t's red uc ti on of h is at to rn ey 's fee award req ue st

. "In a di ve rs it y act io n, st at e la w go ve rn s t h e a v a i la bi li ty of

at to rn ey 's fees whe re no co nf li ct in g fed eral st at ut e or co ur t ru le ap pl ie s." W ei tz Co

.
v. MH W as hi ng to n, 63 1 F.3 d 51 0, 52 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). "In Mi ss ou ri, at to rn ey 's fees

are no t reco ve rab le fro m an ot he r pa rty, ex cep t whe n al lo wed by co nt ract or st at ut e."
Trim Fi t, LLC v. D i c ke y , 60 7 F.3 d 52 8, 53 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Ess ex Co nt ract in g, In c. v. Je ffer so n Cn ty., 27 7 S.W .3d 64 7, 65 7 (Mo

. 20 09 )). Mi ss ou ri la w
st at es th at th e di s t r i c t c ou rt "m ay award co ur t co st s an d reas on ab le at to rn ey fees to th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty" if su cces sf ul on an MHRA clai m

. Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 21 3.1 11 .2.

"Th e de ci si on to award or de ny at to rn ey fees an d th e am ou nt of an y award res ts wit hi n th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e [d is tri ct ] co ur t an d we wil l no t di st ur b th e di st ric t

co ur t's de ci si on ab se nt a cl ear ab us e of th at di sc ret io n." W es co tt Agr i-P ro ds
., In c. v. St erl in g St at e Ban k, In c., 68 2 F.3 d 10 91
, 10 94 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te r n a l qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t ret ai ns th is di sc ret io n "[d ]ue

to it s un iq ue un de rs ta nd in g of an d ex po su re to pr o ceed in gs be fo re it ." Den es ha v. Farm ers Ins . Exch ., 16 1 F .3d 49 1, 5 01 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8)

.

-1 2-i. Hou rly Rate s an d R eas on ab le Fee

Fi rs t, Al-B ire kd ar ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's de te rm in at io n of a reas on ab le ho ur ly rat e an d reas on ab le se rv ic es

. W he n de te rm ining reas on ab le at to rn ey 's fees
, th e di st ric t co ur t us es th e lo de st ar m et ho d, whi ch is "t he nu m be r of ho ur s reas on a b l y

ex pe nd ed on th e li ti ga ti on m ul ti pl ie d by a reas on ab le ho ur ly rat e." Hen sl ey v. Eck erh art , 46 1 U.S. 42 4, 43 3 (1 98 3)

. Ty pi cal ly, we wil l no t di st ur b th e di st ric t

co ur t's de te rm in at io n of an ap pr op ria te ho ur ly rat e an d reas on ab le s e r vi ces

. As we

no te d in Lash v. Hol li s, "t he di st ric t co ur t is be tt er po si ti on ed th an th e ap pe ll at e co ur t
to un de rs ta nd wha t se rv ic es were reas on ab le an d wha t ho ur ly rat es were ap pr op ria te in th e rel ev an t m ark et ." 52 5 F.3 d 63 6, 64 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e fin d th at th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n wit h "l in e it em " cu ts of ho ur s fo r ad m in is tra ti ve an d

m in is te ria l ta sk s, rev ie w of co ur t e-m ai l tra ns m is si on s, an d pr ep arat io n of ex te ns io ns of ti m e. The di st ric t co ur t al so di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in lo weri ng th e ho ur ly rat e. The di st ric t co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered th e pr op er ho ur ly rat e an d reas on ab le se rv ic es ,
us in g re le va nt cas e la w as p art of i ts an al y si s.

ii

. Red uc ti on of Ho ur s

Al-B ire kd ar a l s o ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's gl ob al cu t ba se d on AlBi rek da r's li m it ed su cces s. In Hen sl ey , th e U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai n e d ho w to de te rm in e an ap pr op ria te fee award in cas es in whi ch a pl ai nt iff su ccee de d on so m e, bu t no t al l, cl ai m s. 46 1 U.S. at 43 4– 37

. "If an y is su es on whi ch th e pl ai nt iff lo st are

un rel at ed to th os e on whi ch he won , th e un rel at ed is su es m us t be tre at ed as if th ey

were se pa rat e cas es an d no fees can be award ed ." Je nk in s v. Mi ss ou ri, 12 7 F.3 d 70 9,
71 6 (8 th Cir . 19 97 ) (i nt erp ret in g Hen sl ey , 46 1 U.S. at 43 4– 35 ). "A p la in ti ff ca n b e

co m pe ns at ed fo r wor k on un su cces sf ul cl ai m s i f t h e y are su ffi ci en tl y rel at ed to th e

su cces sf ul cl ai m be cau se th ey 'in vo lv e a co m m on co re of fact s' or 'are ba se d on

-1 3-rel at ed leg al th eo rie s.'" Mare z v . Sai nt -Go ba in Co nt ai ne rs , Inc ., 68 8 F .3d 95 8, 9 66

(8 th Cir . 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Hens le y , 46 1 U.S. at 43 4)

.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t th or ou gh ly an al y zed Al-B ire kd ar's cl ai m s an d m ad e an

ex pr es s fin di ng th at th e cl ai m s were no t su ffi ci en tl y rel at ed

. W he n co up le d wit h AlBi rek da r's fai lu re to ob ta in pu ni ti ve da m a ge s, we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n. See
Mar ez, 68 8 F.3 d at 96 6 (u ph ol di ng th e di st ric t co ur t's red u ct io n of req ue st ed of

at to rn ey 's fees
, fin di ng th e at to rn ey ha d li m it ed su cces s pa rtl y du e to th e fai lu re to ob ta in th e req ue st ed pu ni ti ve da m ag es ).

Fi na ll y , t h e di st ric t co ur t's red uc ti on of fees by 50 % do es no t co ns ti tu te an ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Hen sl ey , 46 1 U.S. at 43 6– 37 ("Th e di st ric t c ou rt m ay
at te m pt to id en ti fy sp eci fic ho ur s th at sh ou ld be el im in at ed
, or it m ay si m pl y red uc e th e award to acco un t for th e li m it ed su cces s. The co ur t ne ces sa ril y ha s di sc ret io n in

m ak in g th i s eq ui ta bl e jud gm en t." ). In so ho ld in g, we ne ces sa ril y reco gn iz e th e di st ric t co ur t's "u ni qu e un de rs ta nd in g" of th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e cl ai m s at is su e

an d th e ro le th e cl ai m fo r p u n i t i v e d a mages pl ay ed in th e ov eral l dynam ic s of th e

un de rlyin g li ti ga ti on

. Den es ha
, 16 1 F.3d at 50 1; se e al so , Hen sl ey , 46 1 U.S. at 43 6 (s tre ss in g th at th ere are no br ig ht -li ne ru le s fo r de te rm in in g de gr ee of su cces s an d

em ph as iz in g t ha t " th e ran ge of p os si bl e su cces s i s v as t." ).

IV. Co nc lu si on

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed

. Bec au se Al-B ire kd ar al so
req ue st ed at to rn ey 's fees fo r ti m e sp en t on po st -tr ia l m ot io ns an d ap pe ll at e wor k, ho wev er, we rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r co ns id erat io n of th is req ue st , le av in g th e is su e to th e d is tri ct co ur t's di sc ret io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-