Opinion ID: 794672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Calculation of Punitive Damages

Text: 131 The district court, after concluding that the defendants acted willfully and wantonly in discharging the plaintiffs, see R.191 at 40, awarded each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs $25,000 in punitive damages. Riverboat submits that the district court erred in two respects. First, Riverboat challenges the district court's factual finding that the defendants acted willfully and wantonly in discharging the plaintiffs. According to Riverboat, Mr. Heitmeier did not know about the letters to the Coast Guard and thus did not willfully violate § 2114. Similarly, Mr. Gourguechon viewed the report as a job preservation effort, and instead terminated the plaintiffs because of their pro-union activity. We review the district court's conclusions, which present questions of fact regarding the defendants' state of mind, for clear error. NRC Corp. v. Amoco Oil Co., 205 F.3d 1007, 1014 (7th Cir.2000). 132 As discussed above, Mr. Heitmeier is not liable in his individual capacity for violation of § 2114, and, thus, punitive damages with respect to his conduct are inappropriate. The district court, however, did make specific factual findings that Mr. Gourguechon's conduct warranted punitive relief and those findings are entitled to deference in this court. For example, the court found that, after being told by Mr. Gaffney that he could not fire someone for corresponding with the Coast Guard, Mr. Gourguechon did not reconsider[] his decision or tak[e] the time to obtain legal advice, but instead quickly fired the remaining plaintiffs. R.191 at 40. It also found that the fact that Mr. Gourguechon remove[d] the offending language from the subsequent termination notices supports the conclusion that he believed that there was something seriously wrong in terminating [Mr.] Gaffney and the other plaintiffs. Id. 133 The district court's award of punitive damages is not against the weight of the evidence. While there is some contrary evidence in the record—for example, Mr. Gourguechon's willingness to provide various plaintiffs with a letter of recommendation after their terminations—the district court's rationale for awarding punitive damages is aptly supported by the facts of the case. Mr. Gourguechon was aware, as of January 6, 1998, that terminating the plaintiffs in retaliation for communicating with the Coast Guard was unlawful; nevertheless, within the next two weeks, he made the decision to terminate seven other signatories to the October 10th report. In light of this conduct, and in light of other, related justifications for awarding punitive relief in this case, such as the possibility that the defendants' actions . . . may have a chilling effect on the willingness of other seamen to report a violation, id., we find that the district court did not err in awarding the plaintiffs punitive damages. 134 Riverboat also submits that, even if the statute authorizes punitive damages, they were not appropriately calculated in this case. Specifically, it contends that the $25,000 awards are excessive, given that the plaintiffs suffered no long lasting effects of the termination. Appellants' Br. at 48 (internal quotation marks omitted). 135 A district court's calculation of punitive damage awards is reviewed for abuse of discretion if no constitutional violation is alleged. 39 Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 433, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001). We shall set aside such an award only if it exceeds an amount necessary to serve the objective of deterrence and punishment. Merriweather v. Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, Inc., 103 F.3d 576, 581 (7th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). 136 We cannot conclude on the basis of this record that the district court abused its discretion in awarding each prevailing plaintiff $25,000 in punitive damages. The district court carefully considered and balanced the competing factors: On the one hand, it noted that the plaintiffs' request for treble damages was disproportionate to the type of harm suffered here and would result in a windfall for the plaintiffs. R.191 at 40-41. Nevertheless, the court held, the need to vindicate [the plaintiffs'] rights made some measure of punitive relief appropriate. Id. at 41. As required by our case law, the court also carefully considered the amount necessary to serve the objective of deterrence and punishment. Merriweather, 103 F.3d at 581. The purpose of punitive relief in the case, the court found, would be to punish the defendants' willful and wanton conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar illegal conduct. This goal is particularly significant in the context of a retaliatory discharge claim, as here, given that the outcome of the case may have a chilling effect on the willingness of other seamen to report a violation. R.191 at 40. On this basis, the court deemed $25,000 per plaintiff in punitive damages appropriate. 137 In light of these considerations, the punitive damages awards are within the bounds of reason. 40 See Merriweather, 103 F.3d at 582 (upholding the district court's award of punitive damages in similar circumstances). Indeed, this sum is less than the actual damages suffered by most of the plaintiffs, which in all but two circumstances exceed $25,000. We therefore uphold the plaintiffs' award as calculated by the district court.