Opinion ID: 407955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Award of Compensatory Damages

Text: 6 We first address the assertion of appellants that the record does not support an award of compensatory damages. Appellants do not challenge the nature of the constitutional rights appellee claims were violated. Their challenge revolves around the finding of a conspiracy to violate those rights. 7 The charges in this case cut deeper than an allegation of discriminatory employment practices. Thomas' complaint alleged a widespread and invidious blue curtain within the New Orleans police force, creating a code of silence to shield those who abide by the code and punish those who violate it. Sanctions allegedly ran from giving the silent treatment to offenders to orchestrating their separation from the force. At trial, defendant Parsons, who was in 1979 the New Orleans Chief of Police, acknowledged that such a blue curtain exists on most every major police force, and admitted that in 1979 it existed to a greater extent in New Orleans than in most other cities. He denied, however, that Thomas' dismissal was the result of any conspiracy. 8 The jury, after hearing all the evidence and receiving proper instructions regarding the legal elements of a conspiracy, found that a conspiracy did exist. The jury answered yes to the following two interrogatories: 9 6. Did any of the defendants join in a conspiracy to violate plaintiff's rights in discharging plaintiff? 10 A. = Yes.9. Do you find that the conduct of the individual defendants in discharging plaintiff was malicious, wanton, or oppressive? 11
12 The role of this Court is not to adjudicate the facts de novo, nor is it our task to second-guess the conclusion of the members of the jury who had the important opportunity to evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses. The appellants urge that there is substantial evidence to support judgment in their favor. This may or may not be the case, but the contention is not germane. The record shows clear and substantial evidence to support the jury's findings for appellee. The facts and inferences do not point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict.... Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc). The trial judge therefore acted properly in denying the motion for directed verdict and in entering judgment consistent with the jury's verdict. 1 13 Appellants urge that Thomas failed to prove that a conspiracy existed. We must reject this contention. The requirement is that the defendants be shown to have had an agreement to commit an illegal act which resulted in the plaintiff's injury. This requirement must often be met by circumstantial evidence; conspirators rarely formulate their plans in ways susceptible of proof by direct evidence. Crowe v. Lucas, 595 F.2d 985, 993 (5th Cir. 1979). 14 The record shows that the various defendants had participated in private meetings during which Thomas' contentions were discussed. Furthermore, the Chief of Police at the time of the incident as well as other witnesses also testified that they suspected other similar wrongdoing within the Department. Thomas, however, was the first officer in ten years to lodge a complaint against a fellow officer for depriving a civilian of civil rights or for using unnecessary force in accomplishing an arrest, according to the stipulations of the parties. If the jury believed the testimony of expert and Police Department witnesses that a blue curtain existed within the New Orleans Police Department, they reasonably could have concluded from the evidence showing the unjustified conduct of Caesar in the arrest and the various meetings and actions of defendants which followed that Thomas was the target of sanctions imposed by such a blue curtain conspiracy. Our careful reading of the entire record shows sufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could have inferred that such a conspiracy existed.