Opinion ID: 155192
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nelson's Cross-Appeal

Text: 1. Application of damages cap to aggregate award of all claims In her cross-appeal, Nelson contends the district court erred in applying the damages cap. Specifically, Nelson argues the court erroneously applied the cap by aggregating her damages and limiting her to $100,000 for all of her Title VII claims. According to Nelson, the cap should be applied separately to each Title VII claim and she should be entitled to the full award of $190,000. We reject Nelson's argument. [W]hen a statute speaks with clarity to an issue[,] judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning, in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, is finished. Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475 (1992). Here, the clear and unambiguous language of § 1981a(b)(3) indicates the cap applies for each complaining party, not to each (...continued) 2 which is limited to $100,000, and we could not provide any effectual relief. In addition, because Nelson remains a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), we find it unnecessary to address RENEW's challenge to the court's award of attorney fees and costs, which is based only upon the argument that Nelson should not have prevailed on either claim and therefore no fees or costs should be awarded. -10- claim. Thus, the court properly applied the cap ($100,000 in this case due to the number of persons employed by RENEW) to the aggregate damages awarded on both of Nelson's Title VII claims.