Opinion ID: 791237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compensatory Damages for Emotional Distress

Text: 65 Defendants fault the district court for denying them remittitur of the $50,000 compensatory damage award to each plaintiff for emotional distress. Remittitur is the process by which a court compels a plaintiff to choose between reduction of an excessive verdict and a new trial. Earl v. Bouchard Transp. Co., 917 F.2d 1320, 1328 (2d Cir.1990) (quoting Shu-Tao Lin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 742 F.2d 45, 49 (2d Cir.1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 914-15 (2d Cir.1997) (noting that a court may not reduce the damages without offering the prevailing party the option of a new trial (internal citations omitted)). We review a district court's ruling on a remittitur motion only for abuse of discretion. Rangolan v. County of Nassau, 370 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir.2004); see also Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 435-38, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996). 66 The emotional distress damages at issue were awarded pursuant to plaintiffs' pendant state law claims. See Haskell v. Kaman Corp., 743 F.2d 113, 120-21 (2d Cir.1984) (noting that plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery for emotional distress in ADEA actions). Thus, the district court was obliged to review the award under New York law. See Consorti v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 103 F.3d 2, 4 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam) (observing that we are obligated to use the standard that New York law prescribes); see also Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. at 419, 116 S.Ct. 2211 (holding that New York law with respect to remittitur of excessive compensation awards could be given effect by federal courts consistent with Seventh Amendment). New York C.P.L.R. § 5501(c) provides that an award of damages must be reduced if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation. This standard calls for closer surveillance than `shock the conscience' oversight. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. at 424, 116 S.Ct. 2211. 67 Defendants contend that, where emotional distress claims are unaccompanied by any evidence of medical treatment or other concrete proof of duration, extent, and consequences, an award of $50,000 deviates materially from reasonable compensation. As this court recently observed, however, New York cases vary widely in the amount of damages awarded for mental anguish. Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 381 F.3d at 78. 4 Thus, we reiterate that while many cases applying N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501(c) reduce awards to $30,000 or below, id. (collecting cases), others uphold awards of more than $100,000 without discussion of protracted suffering, truly egregious conduct, or medical treatment, id. (collecting cases). Thus, Meacham rejected defendant's challenge to a remittitur order of $125,000 for mental anguish to plaintiffs who had not offered evidence of treatment or physical sequelae. Id. at 68. Meacham observed that, [w]hen confronted with the range of mental anguish verdicts approved under New York law, this court could not find a $125,000 award to deviate substantially from verdicts awarded under similar circumstances. Id. at 78. 68 The same conclusion applies to the challenged awards in this case, which fall well below the $125,000 awards upheld in Meacham. Although neither Cross nor Francis sought medical treatment for mental anguish, each plaintiff testified to specific humiliation, anger, and frustration experienced as a result of defendants' age discrimination. Cross described the humiliation he felt while being ridiculed by his foreman and others who never took his promotion seriously and while being assigned the same menial tasks as a Maintainer that he had performed as a Helper. Cross also testified about the shame of his demotion and his fears of discussing it with his wife. He testified that he lost interest in family activities, went to the doctor more often to check his blood pressure, and sought spiritual counseling from a fellow church member. Francis testified that his frustration at work caused him to become angry and lash[] out at people who were not responsible for [his] predicament. Trial Tr. at 156. He further testified about being depressed, snapping at [his] wife and children [and always being] in a state of just anxiety because he felt that authority was being exercised against him in an arbitrary way and he was powerless to remedy the situation. Id. 69 In light of this evidence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the mental anguish damages awarded by the jury in this case did not deviate materially from reasonable awards in comparable cases arising under New York law.