Opinion ID: 165831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Khammoung Praseuth's Cross-appeal

Text: 32 Plaintiff Khammoung Praseuth cross-appeals on three issues. Her brief describes these issues in overly broad terms 2 as: Whether Appellant is liable for punitive damages; Whether Ms. Praseuth's employment was terminated by fraud; and Whether Appellant's duty policy violates the ADA on its face.
33 Stated more precisely, the first issue raised by Ms. Praseuth is whether the district court erred when it granted Rubbermaid's Rule 50 motion and entered judgment as a matter of law in Rubbermaid's favor on plaintiff's claims for punitive damages. 34 Whether sufficient evidence exists to support punitive damages in an ADA case is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. Bartee v. Michelin North America, Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 913-14 (10th Cir.2004). An ADA plaintiff may seek punitive damages if the employer acted with malice or with reckless indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights. Id., citing Kolstad v. American Dental Assoc., 527 U.S. 526, 535, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999) and EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir.1999) (applying Kolstad standard to an ADA case). To satisfy this standard, the employer must engage in prohibited conduct with knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not mere awareness that it is engaging in discrimination. Bartee, 374 F.3d at 914. Thus, as recognized in Bartee and Wal-Mart, both of which apply the Supreme Court's decision in Kolstad, an award of punitive damages requires a higher standard of intentionally illegal discriminatory conduct than is required for compensatory damages. 35 While Ms. Praseuth argues that different standards of malice and recklessness apply depending upon whether the plaintiff's theory of liability is vicarious or direct, the crucial point remains: to be entitled to punitive damages under either theory of liability, a plaintiff must present evidence which satisfies Kolstad's higher standard of intentionally illegal discriminatory conduct. Kolstad explains that this higher standard means, for example, that even if an employer might be found to have intentionally discriminated for other purposes under the ADA, if the employer reasonably believes its actions satisfy a bona fide occupational qualification defense or a statutory exception to liability, then punitive damages are not recoverable. Kolstad, 527 U.S. 526, 537, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494; EEOC v. Wal-Mart, 187 F.3d 1241, 1246 at n. 3. 36 When it granted Rubbermaid's motion for judgment as a matter of law on Ms. Praseuth's punitive damage claims, the district court stated as follows. 37 There may be information in there that you find is contrary to the way Mrs. Praseuth was treated. I don't feel that way. You know, you still have a tough row to hoe to win your ADA claim. The fact is I think any reasonable objective look at the evidence would indicate that Rubbermaid not only did not treat Mrs Praseuth shabbily ... they put her on leave for a year in an effort to try and let her get her condition taken care of. She elected not to have a splenectomy, which might have solved her problem altogether and eliminated the problem with ITP. At the end of the year she still had those restrictions, and she was treated just like every other employee in terms of her employment.... I think a pretty good argument could be made that they hung with her a lot longer than a lot of other employers would have and still comply with the law. 38