Opinion ID: 791044
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 57 FedEx first argues that the district court erred by failing to grant its Rule 50(b) motion on the issue of punitive damages because the award was against the clear weight of the evidence. As we stated above, we review a district court's denial of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo.  Barnes, 401 F.3d at 736. We have explained that: 58 In a federal question case, the standard of review for a Rule 50 motion based on sufficiency of the evidence is identical to that used by the district court. The evidence should not be weighed, and the credibility of the witnesses should not be questioned. The judgment of this court should not be substituted for that of the jury; instead, the evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and that party given the benefit of all reasonable inferences. The motion should be granted, and the district court reversed, only if reasonable minds could not come to a conclusion other than one favoring the movant. 59 Williams v. Nashville Network, 132 F.3d 1123, 1130-31 (6th Cir.1997). In its brief to this court, FedEx argues that even if its actions against Tisdale were retaliatory, no reasonable juror could find that those actions could be imputed to FedEx. We find this argument to be unpersuasive. 60 Punitive damages are available in a Title VII claim where the plaintiff can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer engaged in a discriminatory practice ... with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). The Supreme Court has noted that the statutory language indicates Congressional intent to narrow the class of cases for which punitive awards are available to a subset of those involving intentional discrimination. Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 535, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999). The Court reasoned that an employer must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law to be liable in punitive damages. Id. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118. Punitive damages liability does not arise where the employer may simply be unaware of the relevant federal prohibition, believes the discrimination is lawful, or reasonably believe[s] that the discrimination satisfies a bona fide occupational qualification defense. Id. at 536-37, 119 S.Ct. 2118. Thus, an employer may be held vicariously liable for punitive damages for the intentionally discriminatory conduct of its employee, where the employee served the employer in a managerial capacity, committed the intentional discrimination at issue while acting in the scope of employment, and the employer did not engage in good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 206 F.3d 431, 442 (4th Cir.2000) (interpreting the Kolstad opinion), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 822, 121 S.Ct. 66, 148 L.Ed.2d 31 (2000). 61 First, FedEx argues that all of its employees involved in Tisdale's termination are middle management and therefore, liability cannot be imputed to FedEx. The mere fact that FedEx is a large, global corporation with a multi-layered management structure is insufficient by itself to shield it from liability under Title VII. In Kolstad, the Supreme Court stated that whether an employee serves in a managerial capacity is determined by the type of authority that the employer has given to the employee, the amount of discretion that the employee has in what is done and how it is accomplished. 527 U.S. at 543, 119 S.Ct. 2118 (internal quotation omitted). The employee must be important, but not necessarily top management, officers, or directors, to be acting in a managerial capacity. Id. (internal quotation omitted). We, along with several other courts of appeals, have held that non-senior management employees can serve in a managerial capacity. See Jeffries v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 15 Fed.Appx. 252, 265 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that Wal-Mart store managers, a district manager, and a regional manager served in a managerial capacity so as to impute punitive damages liability onto the corporation as a whole); Lowrey, 206 F.3d at 444 (holding that a department manager who supervised nine other employees, had the authority to hire new persons, and had discretion to organize the department, could constitute an employee in a managerial capacity); EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1247 (10th Cir.1999) (applying Kolstad to find that both an assistant store manager, who had the authority to suspend subordinates and make hiring and firing recommendations, and the store manager, whose responsibilities included the operation of the store and making hiring and firing decisions, held managerial positions for purposes of vicarious liability in the punitive damages context). In this case, the initial investigation was conducted by Stuthard, the operations manager at BNART, who had the authority to suspend and terminate employees. Moreover, Miller, whose authority is to supervise all of FedEx's operations in the district, instigated the security investigation against Tisdale. Miller gave tacit approval to the actions taken by Bynum and Stuthard, and concurred in the decision to terminate Tisdale. Given their significant authority and discretion, a reasonable juror could find that Stuthard and Miller served FedEx in a managerial capacity for purposes of vicarious liability in the punitive damages context. 62 FedEx's second argument is that even if the actors could be found to have served in a managerial capacity, the decisions cannot be imputed to FedEx because they are contrary to the company's good-faith efforts to comply with the law. The Supreme Court, in Kolstad, stated that an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of managerial agents where these decisions are contrary to the employer's good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. 527 U.S. at 545, 119 S.Ct. 2118 (internal quotation omitted). We have suggested in dicta that the mere existence of a written anti-discrimination policy alone does not shield the company from punitive damages. EEOC v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc., 266 F.3d 498, 514, 521 n. 5 (6th Cir.2001). Other courts of appeals have explicitly held that an anti-discrimination policy by itself does not shield an employer from liability. As the Fourth Circuit has stated, [w]hile an employer's institution of a written policy against race discrimination may go a long way toward dispelling any claim about the employer's reckless or malicious state of mind with respect to racial minorities, such a policy is not automatically a bar to the imposition of punitive damages.  Lowery, 206 F.3d at 446 (emphasis added). See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1248 (holding that a written anti-discrimination policy alone is not enough). The Fourth Circuit has explained that an employer's written policy does not shield it from liability where there is sufficient evidence which called into question the sincerity of the employer's commitment to abide by it. Lowery, 206 F.3d at 446. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit held that a company policy did not shield an employer from liability where there was evidence that the employees were never trained about the policy or were even aware of it. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1248-49. 63 Applying these principles to this case, we are not persuaded that a reasonable juror could only conclude that FedEx engaged in good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Though FedEx has placed much evidence in the record in support of its anti-discrimination policies, Tisdale also presented evidence of a number of inconsistent practices at the BNART station, which calls into question FedEx's sincerity to abide by its own written policies. Tisdale testified at trial that he had been complaining about the disparate treatment of African-American employees from 1997 through 2000, and that FedEx made little effort to change. Despite FedEx's professed commitment to diversity, Tisdale explained that there were no African-American managers, supervisors, or office staff at the BNART station during the time he worked there. Several African-American employees testified that they believed that when office jobs became available, African-Americans were passed over in favor of white employees. To protest what they believed were management's discriminatory practices, the African-American employees at BNART boycotted the 1999 Christmas Party. Eighteen African-American employees signed a letter to Miller outlining the perceived racial discrimination at BNART. At trial, FedEx's operations managers conceded that there were racial tensions at BNART during those years. FedEx's own internal documents admit [s]everal incidents of poor management practices at the BNART station which foster[ed] the mistrust of management and [led] to the deterioration of morale. J.A. at 1114 (Memorandum from Miller to Lana Luster 2 (Mar. 23, 2000)). Whether the allegations made by the African-American employees concerning discriminatory treatment were proven true is not the focus of our inquiry, but instead we must decide whether reasonable minds could not come to any conclusion other than the one favoring FedEx. In this case, we conclude that in light of all the evidence presented by Tisdale, a reasonable jury could find that FedEx did not engage in good-faith efforts to treat its minority employees fairly as required by the law. 64 Moreover, despite FedEx's written policy against retaliation, a reasonable jury could find that FedEx ignored its own policies and terminated Tisdale because he voiced concerns about management's discriminatory practices. Though FedEx has established the Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) to ensure against retaliatory terminations, the evidence in the record reveals that the administrative review of Tisdale's termination amounted to little more than a rubber-stamp approval of Bynum's dubious investigation. Shannon Brown (Brown), a FedEx regional vice president, participated in the second step of the GFTP process with regard to Tisdale's termination and testified at trial that he did not conduct an independent investigation of his own but rather relied on the reports from Bynum and Miller. Specifically, Brown testified that he relied on Bynum's report which stated that Tisdale admitted to intentionally keeping money from the sale of FedEx pallets three or four times. Tisdale wrote a letter to Brown specifically stating that at NO time did I fail to turn in FedEx monies, nor did I say I sold pallets and I was confused when selling the pallets. J.A. at 934 (Letter from Tisdale to Brown 2 (July 7, 2000)). Despite this fact, Brown never questioned the accuracy of Bynum's report nor did he even speak to Tisdale or Gardner prior to deciding to uphold the termination. Thus, we conclude that in light of all the evidence presented, a reasonable juror could find that FedEx did not engage in good-faith efforts to comply with the law.