Opinion ID: 777187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Size of the Damages Award.

Text: 71 Tidyman's next contends that the size of the damages awards meant that the jury must have been motivated by sympathy or sheer guesswork, and that the district court abused its discretion by not granting a new trial on this basis. We will not reverse a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial unless the damages are grossly excessive or monstrous. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com'n v. NFL, 791 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir.1986). 72 The plaintiffs introduced testimony of a certified public accountant, Anson Avery (Avery), to support their request for damages. Avery testified that approximately $4.4 million in damages were due to the plaintiffs collectively for past lost wages and future lost wages. The jury returned a verdict of $3.3 million for past lost wages and future lost wages. The jury returned a slightly higher verdict for Lamphiear than the amount Avery recommended as due, and returned a significantly lower verdict for Hemmings. 20 73 The argument by Tidyman's that the jury verdict is grossly excessive is principally based on quibbles with Avery's calculations about the front and back pay awards. Avery testified that he calculated the lost wages amounts by comparing the salary and compensation packages for male executives in similar positions to the salary and compensation packages of the plaintiffs. In Hemmings' case, Avery included in his calculation of the lost wages the difference between Hemmings' salary had Tidyman's promoted her to the position of CFO and her salary without the promotion. For both women, Avery factored inflation and interest rates in calculating the recommended award. The defendant cross-examined Avery about various assumptions in his calculations — such as whether paid vacations and annuities should be included — and potential mathematical errors. 74 On appeal, Tidyman's contends that the alleged problems with Avery's calculations render the verdict monstrous because there is no evidence in the record to support the damage award. This argument clearly fails. As described above, the record supported conclusions of liability. Avery's lengthy and detailed testimony provided a basis for the jury to translate the liability into dollar amounts. Moreover, the jury's award was below the amount calculated by Avery. The fact that the jury may have agreed with Avery and rejected the defendant's contentions, for example, that compensation such as vacation time and annuities should not be included, does not render the verdict grossly excessive or monstrous. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Tidyman's' motion for a new trial on this ground. 75