Opinion ID: 163868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Are Official Capacity Damages Against Ms. Rowse Impermissible Double Recovery?

Text: 40 The defendants argue that the district court's award of official capacity damages against Ms. Rowse on the whistleblower claim resulted in an impermissible double recovery against [the] school district. Aplts' Br. at 8. Because Ms. Rowse was sued only in her official capacity, and because she is an agent of the school district, the defendants argue that the district court erred in permitting both names to be placed on the jury verdict form. The defendants suggest that the school district itself was, in reality, placed on the jury verdict form twice: once under its own name and a second time under the name of one of its employees being sued in her official capacity. Id. at 17. The defendants argue that [t]o permit awards against both the employer directly and indirectly thereby sanctions a double recovery, and that we should instruct the district court to dismiss those claims and the resulting $65,000.00 in damages against Ms. Rowse. Id. at 18. 41 The district court in this case explicitly instructed the jury not to award duplicative damages: 42 You must not award compensatory damages more than once for the same injury. For example, if Plaintiff prevails on two claims and establishes a dollar amount for her injuries, you must not award her additional compensatory damages on each claim. Plaintiff is only entitled to be made whole once and may not recover more than she has lost or suffered. Of course, if different injuries are attributed to the separate claims, then you must compensate Plaintiff fully for all of her injuries. 43 Aple's App. vol. I, at 12 (Jury Instruction No. 36). 44 We presume a jury has followed the court's instructions. See Mason v. Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 115 F.3d 1442, 1456 (10th Cir.1997). The defendants do not allege that the district court judge inappropriately or inadequately instructed the jury. Therefore, we assume that the jury followed these instructions. See Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223, 1235 (10th Cir. 2001) ([T]here was no contention of improper or inadequate instructions to the jury, ... [and thus a] double recovery argument fails because courts must assume that the jury performed its duty in accordance with those instructions.) (internal quotation marks omitted). 45 We are, moreover, persuaded by Ms. Youren's argument that these instructions allowed the jury to apportion its damages so that Ms. Rowse could be publicly sanctioned for having violated the Whistleblower Act. We therefore reject the defendants' argument on this issue.