2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-5-2007 

# R id ley v . C o s t co Whsle P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5134

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R idley v . C os t c o Wh sle " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1680. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1680NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 05- 5134 and 06- 1690 HI LTON M . RI DLEY

v. C O S T C O W H O L E S A L E C O R P ., A ppel l antN o. 05- 5134 HI L T ON M. RI DL E Y, A ppel l antN o. 06- 1690

v. CO STC O W H O LESA LE C O RP. A p p ea ls from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 03860) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez

A r gued J anuary8, 2007 B efore: S L O V ITE R and R E N D E L L , C i rcui tJudg es,

and I R E N A S*, D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed February5, 2007)

* H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

D ev jani M ishra Sey fart h Shaw 1270 A venue of

t he A m er i cas Sui t e 2500 N ew Y or k, N Y 10020- 1801 L ynn A . K appl eman [ ARGUE D] Sey fart h Shaw T w o Seapor tL ane B os t on, , M A 02210 C ouns el f orAppel l ant

/ C r os s Appel l ee C arm en R . M at os St ew ar t , W ood & M at os 411 C herr ySt r eet N or r i s t ow n, PA 19401 Ra l p h E . L a ma r , I V [ ARGUE D] 141 Spruce Lane C ol l egevi l l e, PA 19426 C ouns el f orAppel l ee/

C r os s -Appel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge . 

### Hi l t on Ri dl e y

s ue d hi s form e r

e m pl oye r , Cos t c o Whol e s a l e Cor por at i on (“ Co st co”) fo r r et al iatory dem otion andre tali at ory constr uctive disc harge und er

Titl e VII and the Penn sylvania

Hum an Righ ts Act. OnOctober 17, 20 05 , a fter a s even-day

jury tri a l , the jury

r e t urne d ave r di c t

for Cos t c o on the r e t a l i at ory de m ot i on c l a i m

and for Ridley onthe ret al iatory

constr ucti ve disc harge cl ai m . Costc o app ea ls the Dis tric t Court ’ s de ni a lof i t s m ot i on for judgm e nt

a s am att e r

of l aw on the c ons tr

uc t i ve di s c harge3



### c l a i m and the de ni a lof i t s m ot i on t o va c at e or r e duc e the jury

awar d of $200, 000 for R id ley ’s em o tio n al d istress d am ag es. Ri dl e y c r os s - a ppe a l s , c ha l l e ngi ng the or de r s of the Di s tri c t Court gr ant i ng summ ar y ju dg m ent t o C ostc o o n R idle y ’s cl ai m fo r pun itive damages , denying R idle y ’s m otion to f

il e an o verl ength b ri ef in re spon seto defend ant’ s motion f or summ ar

y j u d g m ent, d enyin g R id ley ’s requ est f o r anh o urly

rate o f $ 3 7 5 f o r o n e o f h is atto rn ey s, and d enying R idle y ’s re qu es t for attorneys’ feesfo r work p er fo rm ed by Ridley ’s coun se l duri ng the Pe nns yl vani aHum an Ri ght s Commi s s i on ( “ PHRC” ) a dmi ni s tr at i ve p ro ceed in g s. I. Ri dl e y wa s hi r e d by

Cos t c o i n 1987 and wa s gr a dua l ly pr om ot e d t o the pos i t i on of Me r c handi s e Mana ge r

i n Cos t c o’ s Lanc a s t e r , Pe nns yl vani awar e hous e . On Augus t 28, 2 0 0 0 , R id ley

receiv eda co un selin g n o tice f o llo w in g a co n f

lict b etw eenR id ley

an dh is imm ed iate sup erv iso r co n cern in g th e ap p ro p riate p ro cedures f o r R id ley to u se to requ est a Sun day of f f rom wo rk. Ridle y

was then transferr ed back to his pre viou s position as Rece iving M anager. Fo ll ow ing R idle y ’s re ce ipt of the Au gu st 20 00 coun se ling no ti ce , he c om pl a i ne d t o Re gi ona lVi c e Pr e s i de nt Yor am Rubane nko and Ea s t

Coa s t Se ni or VicePres ident J eff L on g that he was being tre at ed un fairly and b el ie ved that his ra cewas th e reaso n . Lo ng re qu es te d that Judy Vadn ey , Costc o’s Direc tor of P er sonn el , c on du ct an4



### i nve s t i gat i on of Ri dl e y ’ s c om pl a i nt . Va dne y ’ s not e s fr om he r c onve r s at i on wi th Long in d icate th at L o n g to ldh er th at th ere mig ht b e so m e sexu al h arassm ent issu es w ith Ri dl e y . Va dne y

a l s o t ook not e s fr om

ac onve r s at i on wi th anothe r , uni de nt i fi e d pe r s on who a s ke d Va dne y

t o l ook i nt o a l l e gat i ons of s e xua lhar a s s m e nt and s pous a labus e by R id ley an dto lo o kf

o r “sm o k in g g un s, any

p ro b lem s.” A f

ter interv iew in g w areh o u se em ployee s, Vadn ey

subm itte d a writte n report s umm ariz ing the inte rvie ws she had c onduc t e d. She di d not

m ake any

fa c t ua lfi ndi ngs i n thi s r eport a s t o the va l i di ty

of Ridley ’s com

plaint. Lon g tes ti fied that afte r the repo rt

was c om plet ed, he notifie d R idle y i n al e tt e r dat e d Oc t obe r

26, 2000 that

Va dne y ha d found no e vi de nc e of di s c ri mi nat i on or haras sment in h er

investigation. Ridley

te stifie d that he did no t rec ei ve the Oct ob er 2 0 0 0 l e tt e r

unt i ls o me t i me i n2 0 0 1 . L o n g a l s o t e s t i f i e dth at h e l at e r s e nt R i d l e y ame mo dat e d De c e m

be r 28, 2000, i n whi c h he i nvi t e d Ri dl e y t o m e e t wi th hi m t o di s c us s the i nve s t i gat i on r e s ul t s . Ri dl e y di d r e que s t

am e e ti ng, whi c h wa s e ve nt ua l ly s c he dul e d for Ap ril 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 . O nAp ril 1 0 , 2 0 0 1 , R id ley w as inv o lv edinanin cid ent at th e L an caster w areh o u se i nvol vi ng aforkl i ft . Ri dl e y ope r at e d aforkl i ft

whi c h he us e d t o l i ft

anothe r e m pl oye e up to re se t t he ra dio f re qu ency re ce iver in the war ehou se , in the pres enceof two C ostc o m ana ge r s . Ri dl e y

di d not us e as a fe ty

c a ge , i n vi ol at i on of the Cos t c o s a fe ty r ul e s , and wa s gi ve n ac ouns e l i ng not i c e l at e r that m orni ng. Ri dl e y

me t wi th Long on Apri l11, but only bri e fl y di s c us s e d the di s c ri mi nat i on c om pl a i nt . Mos t

of them e e t i ng wa s s pe nt5



### d iscu ssin g th e f

o rk lif t in cid ent. Fol l owi ng the i nc i de nt , Ri dl e y wa s de mot e d t o the pos i t i on of fr ont - e nd s upe rvi s or

and wa s tr ans fe rr e d t o Cos t c o’ s Chri s t i ana , De l awar e war e hous e . The w areh o u se w as lo catedm o re th an6 0 miles f ro m R id ley ’s h o m e, resu ltin g ina co mm ute of 1.5 to 2 ho urs in eac h d irec ti on . The Chri stiana warehouse m anager, Glenda Tuttle , re ce ived a c op y

of Ridley ’s pers onnel fil e when h e transferr ed to her s tore , but te stifie d th at sh e w as n o t aw are o f R id ley ’s d iscrimin atio nco m p laint. Af te r the transfer , Ridle y

re ce ived thre e c ounsel ing n otic es during a five week peri od . Ridle y

was c ounsel ed onAp ri l 24, 20 01 fo r mov ing a sc rubb er in wh ic h s o me o n e h a dl e f

t th e c o r dun d e r

th e h o o d ; o nM ay

5 , 2 0 0 1 f o r e x c e s s i v e ab s e n c e s , s o me of wh ic h R idle y

al le ges wer e c ov er ed by

the Family

and M edic alLeave Act; and o n M ay 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 f

o r leav in g $ 1 2 6 .0 0 incashinh is w o rk v est p o ck et, wh ichR id ley return edto ther e gi s t e r

a s s oo n a s her e a l i z e d h i s i na dv e rt e nt e rr or . Af

t e r r e c e i vingthefir s t

two not i c e s , Ri dl e y

wr ot e al e tt e r

t o Long c om

pl a i ni ng about

what he pe r c e i ve d t o be r e t a l i at i on by

Cos t c o. I n thi s l e tt e r , Ri dl e y not e d the har ds hips c r e at e d by hi s $17, 000 r e duc t i on i n s a l ary

and the l ong c omm

ut e t o Chri s t i ana . On c r os s - e xami nat i on, Long t e s t i fi e d that

he di d not

unde r s t and fr om

thi s l e tt e r

that Ri dl e y wa s c om pl a i ni ng of re ta li ation. Lo ng ’s re spon seto Ridley ’s com plaint was t o res end h is October 200 0 lette r t o R i d l e y , wri t i n g th at

w e w i l l“ c o n s i d e r

th e matt e r

c l o s e dun l e s s yo uc o nt a c t me d irectly .” L o n g also testif iedth at h e ask edan o th er C o stco em p lo yee to lo o kinto6



### Ridley ’s cl ai m

that his a bsence s wer e c ov er ed by the FML A. Ho wever, Tuttlete stifie d that no one ha d e ve r

m e nt i one d Ri dl e y ’ s c om pl a i nt about the c ouns e l i ng not i c e for ex cessiv e ab sen ces to h er. F o llo w in g th e receip t o f

th e th irdco un selin g n o tice, R id ley ten d eredh is r e s i gnat i on on June 13, 2001. Long ha d s e nt Ri dl e y al e tt e r dat e d June 6, 2001, offe ri ng R id ley th e o p p o rtun ity

to b e co n sid eredf

o r a p o sitio nat th e H arrisb urg , P enn sylv an ia ware ho use. Ridley

was inf orm ed onJune 13 that

this le tt er

had arrived fo r him

at Chri stiana, but he did n ot re ce ive i t untilJune 16 , at which po int he had alre ady re si gn ed hi s e m pl oy m e nt at Cos t c o. II . T h e D istrict C o urt h adj urisd ictio no v er R id ley ’s claim s p ursu ant to 2 8 U .S .C . § 13 31 and w e have juris diction o ver this a pp ea l pursuant t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 12 91 . W e exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of C os t co’ s m ot i on forj udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw . A pp l y i ng t he sam e st and ard used b ythe D i stri ctC ou rt , w e m ust “dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the nonmovi ng par t y ” and w e “maynotm ake cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons orw ei gh the evi dence . ” R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r oduct s , I nc. , 53 0 U . S . 13 3, 15 0 (200 0). In r eview i ng the record as a w ho l e, w e m ust

“ d isre g a rd a ll ev id e n c e f a v o ra b le to th e m o v in g p a rtyth a t th e ju ryis n o t re q u ire d to bel i eve” and “gi ve cr edenc e t o t he evi dence favor i ng the nonmovantas w el l as that ‘e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e m o v in g p a rtyth a t is u n c o n tra d icte d a n d u n im p e a c h e d , at le a st toR id ley arg u e s th a t C o stc o h a s w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t b e c a u se it w a s n o t ra ise d in 1 C o s tc o ’s R u le 5 0 (a ) m o tio n b e f o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . S e e Ku tn e rB u i c k , I n c . v . A m. Mot ors C or

p. , 868 F. 2d 614, 617 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . H ow ever , w e nee d notaddr es s the w ai ver i ssue becau se w e rej ectC ost co’s ar gu m ent on t he m eri t s. 7 t he ext entt hatt hatevi dence comes fr om di s i nt er es t ed w i t nes s es . ’ ” I d. at151. T he D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f C o stco ’s m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial an d fo r rem itti tur o f th e jury ’s d a m a g e a w a rd is re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . B r ennan v. N or t on , 350 F. 3d 399, 431 & n .2 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e r evi ew de novo the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o C os t co on th e is s u e o f

p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . A br am s on v. W i l l i am P at t er

s on C ol l . of

N . J. , 260 F. 3d 265, 276 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on t o fi l e an over l ength br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o defe ndant ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand or deron R id le y ’s re q u e s t f

o r a n a w a rd o f

a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s a re re v ie w e d f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . W a sh in g to n v . P h ila . C o u n ty C t. C o m . P l. , 89 F . 3d 10 31 , 10 34 (3d C i r. 19 96 )( at t orney s’ fe es). III . A . C os t co’ s M ot i on f

or Judgm ent as a M at t er of L aw C os t co fi r s tar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bydeny i ng i t s m ot i on forj udgm ent as a mat t erof l aw on R i dl ey ’ s r et al i at orycons t ruct i ve di s char ge cl ai m beca us e R i dl ey fai l ed t o s how t hathi s D el aw ar e manager s had know l edge of hi s di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai nt . C os t co cont ends t hatt he j urycoul d nothave c oncl uded fr om the evi dence

18

p rese n ted a t tri al th at G lend a T u tt le or a n yo f th e o ther m an ag ers a t C h ri sti an a w ere aw are of R i dl ey ’ s compl ai ntof di s cr i m i nat i on, and ther efor e coul d nothave c oncl uded thatt he m a n a g e rs ’ a c tio n s w e re u n d e rt a k e n in re ta lia tio n f o r R id le y ’s c o m p la in t. T h e e v iden ce fro m w h ich a juryco u ld f ind that T u tt le kn ew ab o u t R idley ’s compl ai ntof di s cr i m i nat i on i s ci r cumst ant i al , buts uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe j ury ’ s fi ndi ng i n favorof R i dl eyon hi s r et al i at or ycons t ruct i ve di s char ge cl ai m . T ut t l e t es t i fi ed thats he s poke t o C os t co R egi onal V i ce Pr es i dentPaul Pul veraboutR i dl ey ’ s tr ans fer , r ece i ved R i dl ey ’ s per s onnel fi l e af t erR i dl eytr ans ferr ed t o C hr i s t i ana, and w as aw ar e thatR i dl ey had bee n t r ans ferr ed t o C hr i s t i ana f ol l ow i ng hi s demot i on fora w or kpl ace i nci dent i nvol vi ng a forkl i ft . H ow ever , T ut t l e deni ed know i ng aboutR i dl ey ’ s di s cr i m i nat i on c o m p lain t. L o n g tes tifie d th a t T u ttl e “ w o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a re o f a n yd o c u m e n tatio n ” in R idley ’s fil e “ p ertaining to an yd isci p li n aryac ti o n . ” T h e juryco u ld h av e re jected T u tt le’s test im o n yan d rea so n ab lyinf erred that T u tt le ha d in f ac t l ea rne d ab o u t R idley ’s d is c ri m in a tio n c o m p la in t f ro m h is p e rs o n n e l f

ile . C f . B l ack v . St ephens , 662 F. 2d 181, 190 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 1981) ( fi ndi ng t hat , des pi t e pol i ce of fi cer ’ s t es t i m onythathe w as unaw ar e of a par t i cul arpol i ce r egul at i on, i tw as r eas onabl e forthe j uryt o fi nd thatthe offi cerhad know l edge of hi s depart m ent ' s rul es and r egul at i ons bas ed on the pol i ce c h ief ’s te stim o n yth a t ea c h o f f ice r w a s is su e d a b o o k c o n tain in g th e d e p a rtm e n t’s s p e c if ic co d e o f d isci p li n e a n d p en alt ies). T h e inf ere n ce that T u tt le kn ew ab o u t R idley ’s compl ai nti s fur t hers uppor t ed byt he evi dence thatT ut t l e s ubj ect ed R i dl eyt o r epea t ed9

di s ci pl i ne form i nori nci dent s s hor t l yaft erhe bega n w or k atC hr i s t i ana. T he evi dence es t abl i s hed thatT ut t l e i s s ued thr ee c ouns el i ng not i ces t o R i dl eyw i t hi n a fi ve w eek per i od, butt hatR i dl ey , pr i ort o hi s tr ans fert o C hr i s t i ana, had onl yr ece i ved one c o u n se lin g n o tice in h is th irtee n y e a rs w ith th e c o m p a n y . R id ley’s te stim o n yth a t T u ttl e s eemed “r el uct ant ” t o gi ve hi m t hes e couns el i ng not i ces fur t hers uppor t s the i nfer ence t hatT ut t l e w as aw ar e thatR i dl ey ’ s conductdi d notm er i tthe puni s hm entthats he i m pos ed o n h im a n d th a t s h e h a d o th e r m o tiv e s f o r i s s u in g th e s e c o u n s e lin g n o tic e s . W e not e thatt he j ur yw as fr ee t o di s cr edi tT ut t l e’ s t es t i m onythats he w as not aw ar e of Ri dl ey ’ s di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai nt . T ut t l e w as a C os t co empl oy ee thatt ook di s ci pl i naryact i on agai ns tR i dl eyand, as s uch, w as nota “di s i nt er es t ed w i t nes s . ” W e m us tal s o di s r egar d t hi s por t i on of Tut t l e’ s t es t i m onyi n det erm i ni ng w hetherther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fort he j ur yt o fi nd thatT ut t l e knew aboutR i dl ey ’ s di s cr i m i nat i on c o m p la in t. See Reev es , 5 3 0 U .S . at 1 5 1 ; s ee al s o Hi l lv. C i t

y of Scr ant on , 411 F. 3d 118, 131 n. 22 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng R eeves a n d n o tin g th a t o n a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n , a co u rt“sh o u ld n o t con side r ev en u n co n tr ad ict ed test im o n yo f a n interested w itn ess w h ere th a t te s tim o n ys u p p o rt s th e m o v a n t” ). Fur t herm or e, R i dl ey ’ s cl ai m forr et al i at orycons t ruct i ve di s char ge w as notbas ed so lelyo n th e a c tio n s o f

th e m a n a g e rs a t C h ristia n a . T h e e v id e n c e o f C o stc o ’s p o stdemot i on r et al i at i on i ncl uded evi dence thatL ong, w ho unques t i onabl yknew about R i dl ey ’ s di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai nt , t r ans ferr ed R i dl eyt o C hr i s t i ana a nd then di d not hi ng10

t o i nves t i gat e R i dl ey ’ s al l egat i ons of pos t - demot i on r et al i at i on cont ai ned i n hi s M ay15, 2 0 0 1 let ter t o L o n g . T h e juryalso co n side red thes e d ec isi o n s b yL o n g as p art of R idley ’s c la im th a t C o s tc o re ta lia te d a g a in s t h im f o llo w in g h is d e m o tio n . C os t co furt herchal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of i t s m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on t he addi t i onal gr ounds thatR i dl ey ’ s cons t ruct i ve di s char ge w as inex tr icab lyintertw ined w ith h is de m o ti o n , that R idleyfa il ed to sh o w p retex t i n C o stco ’s deci s i ons aft ert he demot i on, and thatR i dl eypr es ent ed no evi dence thatC os t co kn ow i ng l yperm i t t ed h i m t o suff er “i ntol erabl e w orki ng con dit i on s. ” A s t o the fi rs t a r g u m e n t , C o s t c o ’ s a c t i o n s f o l l o w i n g R i d l e y’ s d e m o t i o n w e r e n o ts o “ i n e x t r i c a b l y” i nt er t w i ned w i t h t he demot i on s o as t o pr eventthe j uryfr om fi ndi ng that , al t hough the demot i on w as notr et al i at or y , C os t co’ s s ubs equentact i ons w er e. T her e w as s uffi ci ent ev iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al fo r th e juryto co n clud e tha t C o stco ’s po st- d em o ti o n ac ti o n s -- tra n sf e rrin g R id ley t o th e C h ristia n a w a re h o u se , issu in g th re e c o u n se lin g n o tice s to h im d u rin g a f

iv e w e e k p e rio d f

o r m in o r in c id e n ts, a n d f a ili n g to re sp o n d to o r in v e stig a te h is compl ai ntt hatt hes e ac t i ons w er e r et al i at ory- - w er e mot i vat ed bycons i der at i ons di ffe r ent t han thos e thatpr om pt ed C os t co t o demot e R i dl eyand w er e undert aken i n r et al i at i on for R id le y ’s c o m p la in t o f

d is c ri m in a tio n . A s to C o stc o ’s s e c o n d c h a llen g e , alth o u g h C o stc o a rg u e d a t trial th a t it s p o std em o ti o n d ec isi o n s reg ard ing R idleyw ere b ase d o n n o n -retal iat o ryco n side rati o n s, there w as su ff ici en t evid en ce p rese n ted f o r th e juryto f

ind that thes e e x p lana ti o n s w ere11

pr et extual . E ven though R i dl eyadmi t t ed t o engagi ng i n t he conduc tthatr es ul t ed i n t he i s s uance of the couns el i ng not i ces , t he j urycoul d have f ound t hatC os t co’ s puni s hm ent w as gr eat ert han R i dl ey ’ s conductdes erved and thatC os t co us ed thes e mi nori nci dence s as a n ex cu se to retali ate a g ains t R idley . M o reo v er, L o n g ’s fa il u re to loo k into R idley ’s M ay15, 2001 r et al i at i on compl ai nt , w hi ch fol l ow ed R i dl ey ’ s tr ans ferand hi s r ece i ptof t w o couns el i ng not i ces w i t hi n a fe w w eeks of the tr ans fer , fur t hers uppor t s the conc l us i on that the re aso n s o ff

ere d b yC o stco fo r i ts po st- d em o ti o n ac ti o n s ag ains t R idleyw ere pret extual and off

ered t o co ver up it s r et al i at orym oti ves. A s to th e su f

f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e th a t C o stc o k n o w in g lyp e rm itt e d R id ley t o su f f e r “ in to ler a b le w o rk in g c o n d iti o n s,” C o stc o a rg u e s th a t L o n g ’s in v itatio n to R id ley t o appl yfora tr ans fert o t he H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a w ar ehous e pr ecl uded the j uryfr om fi ndi ng t hatR i dl eyhad bee n cons t ruct i vel ydi s char ged and thatthe ver di ctforR i dl eyon th is c laim m u st th e re f

o re b e re v e rse d . H o w e v e r, u n d e r th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in B u rlin g to n N

o rth e rn & S a n ta Fe R a ilw a y C o . v. W

h ite , 126 S. C t . 2405 ( 2006) , R i dl ey w a s n o t re q u ire d to p ro v e th a t h e w a s c o n stru c tiv e lyd isc h a rg e d in o rd e r to p re v a il o n h is claim fo r T it le V II r etali ati o n b ase d o n the a cti o n s tak en b yC o stco af ter R idley ’s demot i on. O urdeci s i on i n R obi ns on v. P i t t s bur gh , 1 2 0 F . 3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), i n w hich w e held that a chal l eng ed acti on m ust“al t er an em ploy ee' s com pen sat i on , t erm s, condi t i ons , orpr i vi l eges of empl oym ent ” i n or dert o be ac t i onabl e as r et al i at i on under T i t l e V I I , w a s a b r o g a t e d b y B url i ng t on N orthern . I n B url i ng t on N orthern , the C o u rt h e ld12

th a t in o rd e r to sh o w re talia tio n u n d e r T itl e V II, “ a p lain tiff m u st s h o w th a t a r e a so n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n m a ter iallya d v e rse , w h ich in th is cont extm eans i tw el l m i ghthave di s s uaded a r eas onabl e w or kerfr om m aki ng or s u p p o rt in g a c h a rg e o f

d is c ri m in a tio n .” 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 2 4 1 5 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). W e the ref

o re n ee d n o t determ ine w h ethe r th ere w as su ff ici en t evid en ce fo r th e jury t o fi nd t hatC os t co’ s act i ons cumul at i vel yamount ed t o a “c ons t ruct i ve di s char ge” b ec au se, un d er B url i ng t on N orthern , the ju ryw a s n o t re q u ire d to m a k e th is f in d in g in o rd e r t o re tu rn a v e rd ic t in f a v o r o f R id le yo n h is re ta lia tio n c la im b a s e d o n th e s e a c tio n s . W e n ee d o n lyd eterm ine w h ethe r th ere w as su ff ici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s f in d in g , im p lic it in th e f

in d in g th a t th e s e a c tio n s c o n s titu te d a “ c o n s tru c tiv e d is c h a rg e ,” th a t C o s tc o ’s p o s t- d e m o tio n a c tio n s a g a in s t R id le yw e re “ m a te ri a lly a d v e rs e .” See i d. at 2416 ( r evi ew i ng t he evi dence i n s uppor tof pl ai nt i ff’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m t o det erm i ne w hethert her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng thatthe empl oy er ’ s act i ons w e re “ m a ter iallya d v e rse ,” a n d n o t ad d re ss in g w h e th e r th e re w a s s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s actual fi ndi ng t hatthe al l eged a ct i ons w er e ac t i onabl e underthe s ubs t ant i ve ant i di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i on of Ti t l e V I I ) . W e conc l ude thatthe evi dence w as su f f icie n t f o r th e ju ryto f

in d th a t C o stc o ’s a c tio n s f o llo w in g R id ley’s d e m o tio n “ w e ll m i ghthave di s s uaded a r eas onabl e w or kerfr om m aki ng ors uppor t i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” I

d. at2415 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W e w i l l acc or di ngl yaff i r m t he Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f Co s t c o ’ s mo t i o n f

o rj u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w.13

B . C os t co’ s M ot i on t o V acat e or R educe t he D am ages A w ard C o stco also arg u es th at D istri ct C o u rterred in f ail ing to v ac ate o r red u ce the ju ry a w a rd o f $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 in e m o tio n a l d istre ss d a m a g e s b e c a u se R id ley t e stif ied o n lyto

“ g a rd e n -v a rie ty ” e m o tio n a l d istre ss a n d a ttribu ted th is d istre ss to h is d e m o tio n a n d h is r es ul t i ng decr eas e i n pay , w hi ch the j uryfound w as notr et al i at ory . U pon r evi ew of R i dl ey ’ s t es t i m ony , w e conc l ude thatC os t co mi s cons t rues R i dl ey ’ s t es t i m onyas t o t he cause o f his dis t res s. T he evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al conce r ned notonl yR i dl ey ’ s r eac t i on t o hi s demot i on, butal s o hi s emot i onal di s t r es s connec t ed w i t h C os t co’ s s ubs equent act i ons . A l t hough t he ques t i on R i dl eyw as as ked attr i al w as “how di d i tm ake y ou fee l forC os t co t o demot e y ou?, ” R i dl ey ’ s r es pons e cl ear l yaddr es s ed notonl ythe demot i on, butal s o t he tr ans ferand hi s eventual departur e fr om the company . R i dl eyr epl i ed: “Em ot i onal l y , i tw as l i ke a mar r i age t o m e. I m ean, and once w e depa r t ed, oronce i tw as over , I fel thur tand betr ay ed. ” I n r es pons e t o t he nextques t i on, “how di d i teff ect , i f at all , the w ayy o u ac ted a rou n d y o u r w ife a n d ch il d ren ? , ” R idleyrep li ed : “T h ing s w ere d if f ic u lt. M yw if

e w a s c o n c e rn e d a b o u t th e f in a n c ia l p a rt o f

it. I to ld h e r w e ’l l m a k e it. I tbr oughthar ds hi p orfrus t r at i on w i t hi n t he home m ym e bei ng on t he r oad forthr ee hour s ors o back a nd for t h t o w or k. T hatdi dn’ tl eave m e w i t h enough t i m e t o hel p her outar ound t he hous e. A nd I w oul d fi nd, I di dn’ tunder s t and i t , butI w oul d fi nd for m y s el f thatI w as harpi ng on t hi ngs thatpr obabl ys houl d have be en done, and not re a lizin g th a t th e o n lyre a so n th e yg o t d o n e in th e f irst p lac e [ w a s] b e c a u se sh e h a d h e lp14

f ro m m e . S o it m a d e life d if f icu lt at h o m e .” R id ley also b e g a n o p e n lyc ry in g a t p o in ts w h ile re a d in g h is re s ig n a tio n le tte r a t tr ia l. A s t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence pr es ent ed t o s uppor tan aw ar d of $200, 000, w e have pr evi ous l yuphel d s i m i l ar l yl ar ge aw ar ds of emot i onal di s t r es s damages bas ed on th e te s tim o n yo f

n o n -m e d ic a l w itn e s s e s . See G agl i ar do v. C onnaughtLabs. , I nc. , 311 F. 3d 565, 573 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( uphol di ng deni al of m ot i on forr emi t t i turof $1. 55 m i l l i on aw ar d forpai n and s uffe r i ng t hatw as bas ed on t es t i m onyfr om pl ai nt i ff’ s co- w or ker s and fami l yt hatdemonstr at ed the ef fec t s of the ment al tr auma t hattr ans form ed pl ai nt i ff f r om a happyand conf

i dentper s on t o one w ho w as w i t hdr aw n and i ndeci s i ve) . A ttr i al , R i dl ey pr es ent ed hi s ow n t es t i m onyas t o t he di s t r es s thatC os t co’ s act i ons caus ed, as w el l as t he t es t i m onyof hi s w i fe, D onna R i dl ey , w ho des cr i bed the ef fec tthatC os t co’ s act i ons had on herhus band. D onna R i dl eyt es t i fi ed thataft erR i dl ey ’ s tr ans ferand demot i on, “he ha d t r oubl e s l eepi ng, he l os tw ei ght , he w as – he w i t hdr ew s oci al l y , athom e, w i t h our chi l dr en. H e w as j us tnut s . H e j us tw as n’ tthe s ame. ” She t es t i fi ed thatR i dl eyw oul d be dow ns t ai r s w at chi ng T V i n t he mi ddl e of the ni ghtw hen s he w oul d w ake up, ori n bed “he w oul d j us tbe l ay i ng t her e and he w oul d s ays om ethi ng t o m e w hen I w oke up and I w o u ld as k h im w h at w as w ron g an d that’s w h at he w as th ink ing ab o u t. H e jus t cou ldn ’t geti toutof hi s m i nd. ” D onna t es t i fi ed that , up t o t he dat e of he rt es t i m ony , R i dl eyw as s t i l l depr es s ed and ha d t r oubl e s l eepi ng. She al s o t es t i fi ed, as t o herhus band’ s s el festee m , that “I d o n ’tthink h e h as a n yan ym o re. H e w as v ery– u sed to b e a v ery15

confi dentper s on and that– hi s s ens e of s el f w or t h di s appea r ed. ” Si nce ther e w as suffici ent evi den ce t o sup po rtt he jury ’s aw ard of $ 20 0, 00 0 in em oti on al dis t res s damages , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng C os t co’ s m ot i on t o vaca t e orr educe the aw ar d and w e w i l l ther efor e af fi r m the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

C o s tc o ’s m o tio n . C . R i dl ey’s C l ai m f

or Pu ni t i ve D am ages R id ley arg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to C o stc o o n R id ley’s c laim f o r p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T o re c o v e r p u n iti v e d a m a g e s f o r h is T it le V II clai m , R idleym u st ha v e d em o n str ated that C o stco “e n g ag ed in a d iscri m inato ry pr act i ce ordi s cr i m i nat or ypr act i ces w i t h m al i ce orw i t h r eckl es s i ndi ffe r ence t o t he f e d e r a l l yp r o t e c t e d r i g h t s o f a n a g g r i e v e d i n d i v i d u a l . ” 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 1 a ( b ) ( 1 ) . An empl oy erm aybe vi car i ous l yl i abl e forthe di s cr i m i nat i on of i t s empl oy ee i f the empl oy ee w as s ervi ng i n a “manager i al capa ci t y ” and c om m i t t ed the w r ong w hi l e “a ct i ng i n t he s cope of hi s empl oym ent . ” Ko lsta d v. A m . D en tal A ss’n , 5 2 7 U .S . 5 2 6 , 5 4 2 (1 9 9 9 ). H ow ever , “an e m pl oy erm aynotbe vi car i ous l yl i abl e forthe di s cr i m i nat oryempl oym ent d e c i s i o n s o f

m a n a g e r i a l a g e n t s w h e r e th e s e d e c i s i o n s a r e c o n t r a r y t o th e e m p l o ye r 's

‘ good- fai t h eff

or t s t o compl yw i t h T i t l e V I I . ’ ” I d. a t 5 4 5 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o C os t co on R i dl ey ’ s cl ai m for p u n iti v e d a m a g e s, n o tin g th a t th e u n d isp u ted f a c ts d e m o n stra ted th a t C o stc o c o n sis ten tly m ade good f

ai t h eff or t s t o i m pl ementand enf or ce i t s ant i - di s cr i m i nat i on pol i cy . R i dl ey16

d isa g re e s w ith th is c o n c lu sio n , arg u in g th a t th e in a d e q u a c yo f V a d n e y ’s in v e stig a tio n in to h is o rig in a l d isc rim in a tio n c o m p lain t an d L o n g ’s s u b se q u e n t f a ilu re to in v e stig a te R i dl ey ’ s al l egat i ons of r et al i at i on cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of f actas t o w hetherC os t co m a d e a g o o d -f

a ith e f f o rt to im p le m e n t a n d e n f o rc e its a n ti- d is c ri m in a tio n p o lic y . H ow ever , t he undi s put ed evi dence pr es ent ed byC os t co es t abl i s hed thatC os t co m ai nt ai ned pol i ci es agai ns tdi s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m entand an O pen D oorpol i cyfor r epor t i ng compl ai nt s of di s cr i m i nat i on orhar as s m ent . T he evi dence al s o s how ed that C os t co tr ai ned new s upervi s or s w i t h r es pectt o C os t co’ s har as s m entcompl ai ntpol i cyand p ro v id e d su p e rv iso rs w ith d e taile d m a ter ials re g a rd in g th e su p e rv iso r’s o b lig a tio n to add res s di scr i m i nati on i ssues. C o stc o a lso tra in e d its w a re h o u se a n d sta f f m a n a g e rs w ith r egar d t o handl i ng compl ai nt s of di s cr i m i nat i on and i ns t ruct ed manager s thats uch compl ai nt s w er e t o be t aken s er i ous l y . D es pi t e the di s put ed i s s ues of fa ct s as t o w hether V a d n e ya n d L o n g ’s a c tio n s w e re a d e q u a te, a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld n o t co n c lu d e f ro m th is e v id e n c e th a t th e c o m p a n yd id n o t m a k e g o o d -f a ith e f f o rt s to c o m p ly w ith T itle V II . W e w i l l t her efor e af

fi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o C os t co on Ri d l e y ’ s p u n i t i v e d a ma g e s c l a i m. D . R i dl ey’s M ot i on t o F i l e an O verl engt h B ri ef R i dl eyal s o appea l s t he C our t ’ s deni al of hi s r eques tt o fi l e an ove r l ength br i ef on the g rou n d s tha t th is r ef u sal m ayh av e led to the C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t C o stco ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t on R idley ’s pu n it ive d am ag es c lai m . T h e D istri ct C o u rt17

has a s t andi ng rul e thati m pos es a 15 page l i m i ton br i efs t o t he C our t . R i dl eys ubm i t t ed a pr opos ed 48 page br i ef thatcont ai ned more det ai l ed ar gum entand more fac t s conce r ni ng th e im p o sitio n o f

p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. W e f in d th a t R id ley ha d a d e q u a te o p p o rtu n ityto r ai s e hi s ar gum ent s i n oppos i t i on t o C os t co’ s m ot i on i n hi s 15 page br i ef and thati tw as th e re f o re n o t an a b u se o f

d isc re tio n f

o r th e D istric t C o u rt to d e n yR id ley’s re q u e st to f ile an over l ength br i ef. E . R i dl ey’s A t t orneys’ F ees R eques t f or C arm en M at os R i dl eyar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng R i dl ey ’ s r eques tforan hour l yfee of $375. 00 forhi s at t or ney , C arm en M at os . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that R i dl eydi d notm eethi s pr i m a fa ci e bur den t o es t abl i s h t hatthe $375. 00 r at e forM at os w as r eas onabl e bec aus e M at os ’ r ol e i n l i t i gat i ng the ca s e w as l i m i t ed w hen compar ed w ith le a d c o u n s e l’ s ro le a n d M a to s a d m itte d ly u n d e rt o o k th e c a s e o n a c o n tin g e n c yb a s is . T he C our tdi d not , how ever , r educe l ead c ouns el ’ s hour l yr at e eve n t hough l ead c ouns el al s o t ook t he ca s e on a c ont i ngencybas i s . T her e w as no r eas onabl e bas i s forthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt to c o n sid e r th e c o n tin g e n c yf e e a rra n g e m e n t b e tw e e n p lain tiff a n d M a to s in det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e hour l yr at e forM at os , w hen the C our tdi d notcons i derthe f e e a rra n g e m e n t b e tw e e n p lain tiff a n d lea d c o u n se l in d e ter m in in g lea d c o u n se l’s h o u rly fee . Si m i l ar l y , t her e w as no r eas onabl e bas i s forr educi ng M at os ’ fee bas ed on her l i m i t ed r ol e i n t he l i t i gat i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notconcl ude thats om e oral l of the w or k per form ed byM at os s houl d orcoul d have be en per form ed bya l es s s eni orat t or ney18

w ith a lo w e r b ill in g ra te. T h e C o u rt m e re lyn o ted th a t M a to s’ “ ro le in lit ig a tin g th is m at t er w as l i m i t ed w hen com pared w i t h lead cou nsel ’s effo rt s. ” H ow ever, M at os’ l i m i t ed r ol e i s al r eadyr efl ect ed i n t he numberof hour s s he bi l l ed on the ca s e. W e fi nd t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n cons i der i ng M at os ’ l i m i t ed r ol e i n t he l i t i gat i on and the fac tt hats he t ook t he ca s e on a c ont i ngencybas i s i n det erm i ni ng w hetherR i dl ey e s ta b lis h e d h is p ri m a f

a c ie c a s e o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s . I n s uppor tof hi s fee r eques t , R i dl eys ubm i t t ed af fi davi t s fr om tw o exper i ence d ci vi l r i ght s pr act i t i oner s w ho opi ned that$375 i s a fa i rand r eas onabl e r at e fors om eone of M at os ’ exper i ence . B ot h pr act i t i oner s w er e per s onal l yfami l i arw i t h M at os . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt a g re e d th a t “M a to s is u n d e n iab lya n e x p e rie n c e d lit ig a to r.” C o stc o d id n o t su b m it a n ya f f id a v its a s to a re a so n a b le h o u rlyra te f o r M a to s, b u t o b

jec ted to th e h o u rlyra te in i t s br i ef. T hi s obj ect i on w as nots uffi ci entt o al l ow the D i s t r i ctC our tt o departfr om t he re q u e s te d f

e e o n c e R id le ym a d e o u t h is p ri m a f a c ie c a s e o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s . See W a sh in g to n v . P h ila . C o u n ty C t. C o m . P l. , 89 F. 3d 1031, 1036 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( vaca t i ng at t or ney s ’ fee aw ar d ent er ed byt he di s t r i ctcourtthatr educe d couns el ’ s hour l yr at e fr om $ 2 5 0 to $ 1 7 5 b ec au se p artylosing fe e a w ard fa il ed to reb u t sub m issi o n s b yp lai n ti ff ’s couns el as t o t he r eas onabl enes s of couns el ’ s hour l yr at e) . W e have pr evi ous l ynot ed that

“ [ w ]h e re , as h e re , the p lain tiff h a s m e t h is p rim a f

a c ie b u rd e n u n d e r th e ‘c o m m u n ity m ark et rate’ l o d estar test, an d the o p p o sing p artyh as n o t pro d u ce d co n tr ad ict o ry e v id e n c e , the d istric t co u rt m a yn o t ex e rc ise its d isc re tio n to a d ju st th e re q u e ste d ra te19

dow nw ar d. ” I

d. W e w i l l t herefore vacate the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order grant i ng at t orney s’ f e e s to R id le yto th e e x te n t th a t it r e d u c e d M a to s ’ h o u rl yra te f ro m $ 3 7 5 .0 0 to $ 3 0 0 .0 0 . F. R i dl e y’ s A t t or ne ys ’ Fee s R e que s t f or t he PH R C Pro c e e di ng R i dl eyal s o appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s r eques tforat t orney s ’ fee s for w or k per form ed dur i ng t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs befor e the Penns y l vani a H um an R ig h ts C o m m iss io n (“ P H R C ” ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c ited th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in N . Y . G as LightC l ub, I

nc. v. C ar ey , 447 U . S. 54, 71 ( 1980) , i n s uppor tof the pr opos i t i on t hatal t hough “Ti t l e V I I author i zes r ecove r yof att orney ’ s fee s foradmi ni s t r at i ve p roc ee d ing s, the c o m p lai n an t m u st ha v e p rev ail ed in tho se p roc ee d ing s fo r a d istri ct co u rt to o rd e r re im b u rse m e n t o f f e e s a n d c o sts .” W e f

in d th a t N

. Y . G as LightC l ub does not d icta te th a t th e p re v a ili n g p a rtym u st h a v e p re v a iled in th e a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g in or dert o r ecove rfee s fort hatpr ocee di ng. I n t hatcas e, the Supr eme C our thel d t hat“§§ 706( f) and 706( k) of Ti t l e V I I author i ze a fede r al - cour tact i on t o r ecove ran aw ar d of at t or ney ' s fee s forw or k done byt he pr evai l i ng compl ai nanti n s t at e pr ocee di ngs t o w hi ch t he compl ai nantw as r efe r r ed pur s uantt o t he pr ovi s i ons of Ti t l e V I I . ” N . Y . G as l ight C l ub, I nc. , 447 U . S. at71. Si nce the pl ai nt i ff i n N . Y . G as LightC l ub di d pr evai l i n t he st at e proceed i ng s, t he q uest i on of w hetherthe p artym usthav e prevail ed in tho se p ro c e e d in g s in o rd e r to re c o v e r f e e s a ss o c iate d w ith th e m w a s n o t ad d re ss e d b yth e C o u rt. 42 U . S. C . § 1988( b) pr ovi des , i n r el evantpart , that“[i ] n anyact i on orpr ocee di ng to e n f o rc e a p ro v is io n o f

s e c tio n s 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 1 a , 1 9 8 2 , 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 8 5 , a n d 1 9 8 6 o f th is title ...20

th e c o u rt , in its d is c re tio n , m a ya llo w th e p re v a ilin g p a rt y , o th e r t h a n th e U n ite d S ta te s , a re a so n a b le a tto rn e y ' s f

e e a s p a rt o f

th e c o sts .” C o stc o a rg u e s th a t “p re v a ili n g p a rty ” in §1988 m eans t hatt he part ym us thave pr evai l ed i n t hats t age of the l i t i gat i on forw hi ch he s e e k s c o u n s e l f

e e s , re g a rd le s s o f

w h e th e r h e u ltim a te ly w a s th e “ p re v a ilin g p a rt y ” a t tr ia l. W e di s agr ee. W e conc l ude thatnothi ng i n § 1988 r equi r es R i dl eyt o have pr evai l ed i n t he PH R C pr ocee di ngs i n or derfort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o have be en al l ow ed t o or der r ei m bur s ementof hi s fee s and cos t s under§ 1988. R i dl eyw as r equi r ed t o conductthe admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs att he PH R C pr i ort o br i ngi ng hi s cl ai m s i n fede r al cour t ; t he P H R C p ro c e e d in g s w e re a n e c e ss a ryp re c u rso r to R id ley’s u lti m a te s u c c e ss a t trial o n h is claim fo r retal iat o ryco n stru cti v e d isch arg e. W e w il l th ere fo re v ac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s at t or ney s ’ fee aw ar d and r emand forr econs i der at i on of R i dl ey ’ s r eques tforcouns el fee s f o r th e P H R C p ro c e e d in g w ith th e u n d e rsta n d in g th a t R id ley w a s n o t re q u ire d to p re v a il att he PH R C pr ocee di ng i n or dert o r ecove rfee s forcouns el ’ s w or k r el at ed t o t hat pr ocee di ng. I V. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rt d e n y in g C o stc o ’s m o tio n f o r ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law a n d d e n y in g its m o tio n to v a c a te orr educe t he j ur yaw ar d of emot i onal di s t r es s damages . W e w i l l al s o aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entforC os t co on R i dl ey ’ s cl ai m forpuni t i ve d a m a g e s a n d its o rd e r d e n y in g R id ley’s m o tio n to f ile a n o v e rle n g th b rie f. W e w ill v a c a te21

t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s aw ar d of att or ney s ’ fee s and r emand forfur t hercons i der at i on cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. I n par t i cul ar , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ' s as s es s m ent o f M a to s ’ h o u rl yra te , a n d re m a n d f o r a n e w c a lc u la tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is o p in io n . W e w i l l al s o vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ' s deni al of R i dl ey ’ s r eques tforcouns el fee s fort he PH R C pr ocee di ng, and di r ectt he C our tt o r econs i derthi s r eques tw i t h t he under s t andi ng t hatR i dl eyw as notr equi r ed t o pr evai l atthe PH R C pr ocee di ng i n or dert o r ecove rfee s forcouns el ’ s w or k r el at ed t o t hatpr ocee di ng.