UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

 Case No. 2:18-cv-544 

Plaintiff, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson 

v. 

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff Melissa McFadden’s (“Lt. McFadden”) Motion for New Trial 

on Damages Only. (ECF No. 111). For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion for New Trial.

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Lt. McFadden brought a Complaint with Jury Demand against Defendant City of 

Columbus on June 4, 2018. (ECF No. 2). The case proceeded to trial, and a jury verdict was 

announced on June 13, 2022. (ECF No. 104). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant 

Motion for New Trial on Damages Only on June 27, 2022. (ECF No. 111). Defendant 

responded to the instant Motion for New Trial on Damages on July 18, 2022. (ECF No. 117). 

Plaintiff replied a few days later on July 20. (ECF No 118). 

II. Standard

Under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a new trial may be granted for 

“any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal 

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 128 Filed: 05/01/23 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 8156
2

court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). One such reason is an insufficient damages award. Walker 

v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660, 674 (6th Cir. 2001). However, “[t]he scope of review of a damage award 

is extremely narrow.” Walker, 257 F.3d at 674. “The remedy of a new trial for inadequate 

damages is appropriate only where the evidence indicates that the jury awarded damages in an 

amount substantially less than unquestionably proved by the plaintiff’s uncontradicted and 

undisputed evidence.” Walker, 257 F.3d at 674 (citing Anchor v. O’Toole, 94 F.3d 1014, 1021 

(6th Cir. 1996)). “In other words, a jury's damages award ‘need only be supported by some 

competent, credible evidence.’” Sevy v. Barach, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165933 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 

14, 2022) (quoting Heard v. Finco, 930 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2019)).

III. Analysis

Plaintiff maintains she is entitled to a new jury trial on the issue of damages because the 

previous awards are:

(1) against the clear weight of the evidence on her damages; (2) reflect that the 

jury failed to follow the following jury instructions (a) by giving improper weight 

to the allegations that led to her reassignment rather than the complained of illegal 

conduct reassigning Lt. McFadden to the property room to disassemble vests, and 

(b) describing the factors to be considered in awarding damages; (3) perpetuating 

the very discrimination and retaliation the jury found the City had committed by 

apparently being anchored in dislike for her because she too aggressively pursued 

claims against what she perceived – rightly in light of the jury verdict on her 

temporary assignment to menial duties in the Property Room – to be 

discrimination and retaliation; and/or (4) constitute an injustice that unacceptably 

undervalues the intangible harm inflicted on victims of discrimination or 

retaliation and unreasonably rejects corroborated testimony.

(ECF No. 111, at 1). 

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that the jury adwarded unfairly low damages. 

Defendant maintains that the nominal damages award was fair because “Plaintiff suffered no 

damages whatsoever from being temporarily reassigned to the property room.” (ECF No. 117, 

at 1). A federal court may grant a new trial on damages “only where the evidence indicates that 

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 128 Filed: 05/01/23 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 8157
3

the jury awarded damages in an amount substantially less than unquestionably proved by the 

plaintiff’s uncontradicted and undisputed evidence.” Walker, 257 F.3d at 674. Thus, the 

question becomes whether Plaintiff unquestionably proved, through uncontradicted and 

undisputed evidence, that she was entitled to more than $2 in damages. The Court’s answer is in 

the negative.

The jury instructions at trial, which to Plaintiff does not object, detail several categories 

of damages for the jury to consider. (ECF No. 106, at 23). These include “[l]ost wages” and 

“[a]ny physical, mental, and/or emotional pain and suffering-including humiliation, anguish, 

frustration, and sadness-experienced by Lt. McFadden because of her reassignment to the 

property room.” (Id.). The Court will analyze each category below.

a. Physical Injury

Plaintiff maintains the jury undervalued her damages because “the City did not present 

any contrary evidence about the cause of Lt. McFadden’s injury.” (ECF No. 111, at 10). 

Defendant, however, states “Plaintiff presented no evidence at trial that her shoulder injury was 

‘caused’ by her reassignment, even though she claimed it occurred during the course of her work 

in the property room.” (ECF No. 118, at 8). The record reflects that the credible, competent 

evidence presented at trial supports the conclusion that Plaintiff did not prove her injury was 

caused by the illegal reassignment. 

First, Plaintiff’s only direct evidence as to the cause of her injury was her own testimony. 

This testimony was undercut by her supervisor at the time, Commander Gardner, who estimated 

that Plaintiff disassembled only between 16 to 20 vests during her time in the property room. 

(ECF No. 123, at 804). Second, there was no evidence presented at trial that any person 

involved in Plaintiff’s reassignment expected Plaintiff to injure herself during her assignment. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 128 Filed: 05/01/23 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 8158
4

And Gardner stated that Plaintiff never informed him of any physical inability to do the work she 

was given. (Id.). Third, Plaintiff presented no evidence that she was required to lift an unsafe 

number of vests at any one time. (ECF No. 121, at 438–39). From this competent, credible 

evidence, a jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s injuries were not proximately caused by her 

illegal reassignment. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to damages for “physical, mental, and/or 

emotional pain and suffering” resulting from her injury. (ECF No. 106, at 23). Further, the 

record reflects that Plaintiff’s medical bills were paid for by the Bureau of Workers 

Compensation, so Plaintiff suffered no direct, out of pocket loss from this injury. (ECF No. 121, 

at 439). 

b. Economic Damages 

Next, Plaintiff contends that the temporary reassignment caused her “economic losses 

from a physical injury.” (ECF No. 111, at 2). This includes the “economic loss of being on 

disability pay, and the loan that Lt. McFadden took to complete her law degree.” (Id. at 16). 

Plaintiff argues the reassignment caused her to become ineligible for law school tuition 

reimbursements, paid for by Defendant, which she would otherwise be entitled to. (Id. at 8). 

This forced her to take out loans which she would otherwise not have needed. (Id.). However, 

the record reflects that it was not her reassignment to the property room that caused Plaintiff to 

become ineligible for tuition reimbursement. It was her status on injury leave. (ECF No. 121, at 

410–11). In the same vein, it was Plaintiff’s injury that caused her to be put on disabled status 

and receive disability pay, not the illegal reassignment itself. (Id. at 398). As competent, 

credible evidence supports the conclusion that Plaintiff’s injury was not caused by her 

reassignment, the Court will not second guess the jury’s conclusion.

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 128 Filed: 05/01/23 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 8159
5

c. Mental and/or Emotional Pain and Suffering

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the jury undervalued her damages resulting from the 

“emotional distress and mental anguish Lt. McFadden suffered.” (ECF No. 111, at 25). She 

states, “[i]t is uncontradicted and undisputed that Lt. McFadden suffered some emotional 

distress, mental anguish, and humiliation from being a victim of discrimination and retaliation.” 

(Id. at 18). Thus, “[i]t is totally unreasonable to remedy that emotional distress and mental 

anguish with $2.00.” (Id.). Defendant disagrees, asserting, “Defendant presented sufficient 

evidence to the jury that Plaintiff did not suffer any emotional distress from being reassigned to 

the property room.” (ECF No. 117, at 9). From what was presented at trial, there is competent, 

credible evidence to support the jury’s conclusion Plaintiff did not suffer any mental or 

emotional distress from her reassignment. 

The only evidence of mental or emotional distress Plaintiff presented came from herself 

and her husband. Plaintiff’s husband testified that Plaintiff experienced some emotional distress. 

He also testified that traveling makes Plaintiff happy and that the two had traveled more in recent 

years than before Plaintiff’s reassignment. (ECF No. 122, at 607–08). He also admitted they 

had also recently moved to a “nice, new, big house together,” and that they had a “better... life 

than ever before.” (Id. at 609). Further, Plaintiff and her husband have continued to do 

activities, such as watching Netflix and cooking together, that they enjoy. (Id. at 608–09). 

Additionally, while Plaintiff’s testimony as to her emotional distress was essentially 

unrebutted, that fact alone does not entitle her to damages. 

“The fact that the defendants did not rebut [Plaintiff]'s testimony directly does not 

necessarily render the jury's determination on the issue of damages against the great 

weight of evidence. [Plaintiff] had the burden of proving damages, and the only 

evidence of damages was [Plaintiff]'s self-serving testimony about his mental 

distress. This is not a case where the jury disregarded clear, objective and 

uncontradicted evidence. The jury was free to accept or disregard [Plaintiff]'s 

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 128 Filed: 05/01/23 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 8160
6

statement, and it chose to disregard it.”

Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660, 674.

 The City’s failure to contradict or rebut certain aspects of plaintiff’s testimony “directly 

does not necessarily render the jury's determination on the issue of damages against the great 

weight of evidence.” Id. Thus, the Plaintiff did not “unquestionably prove” that she suffered 

emotional distress. Walker, 257 F.3d at 674.

Even assuming that the jury believed Plaintiff was distressed, the competent, credible 

evidence before them could have led the jury to conclude that her distress was not attributable to 

her reassignment. Plaintiff’s husband testified about other stressors in Plaintiff’s life. The jury 

heard about the numerous problems Plaintiff dealt with regarding a close family member. (ECF 

No. 122, at 610–612). Other potential stressors include law school (ECF No. 122, at 602), the 

bar exam (Id. at 616–617), writing a book (Id. at 602), and media attention (Id. at 616). Further, 

Defendant presented testimony that Plaintiff’s reassignment was comfortable. Defendant 

elicited testimony that the property room was a coveted assignment. (ECF No. 123, at 884). 

Plaintiff was allowed to pick her own hours and days off. (Id. at 778–79). She was allowed to 

wear casual clothing. (Id. at 779). She even received her own private office. (Id. at 804). Given 

this testimony, the Court finds that the jury was presented with competent, credible evidence that 

other stressors in Plaintiff’s life caused her distress, not her reassignment. 

d. Damages Conclusion

Despite Plaintiff’s assertions, the jury did not award her “an amount substantially less than 

unquestionably proved by the plaintiff’s uncontradicted and undisputed evidence.” Walker, 257 

F.3d at 674 (citing Anchor v. O’Toole, 94 F.3d 1014, 1021 (6th Cir.1996)). Defendant presented 

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 128 Filed: 05/01/23 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 8161
7 

competent, credible evidence that indicated Plaintiff did not suffer damages as a result of her 

illegal reassignment. Plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial.

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial on Damages 

Only. (ECF No. 111). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5/1/2023 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 128 Filed: 05/01/23 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 8162