Opinion ID: 203690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Threshold Requirement for Punitive Damages

Text: Because it is a question of law, we review de novo whether the evidence presented at trial sufficed to meet the threshold requirement for punitive damages under section 1983. Powell, 391 F.3d at 15 (citing Marcano-Rivera v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc., 232 F.3d 245, 254 (1st Cir.2000)); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 25 (1st Cir.1999). In Smith v. Wade , the Supreme Court held that punitive damages were proper in a section 1983 suit only when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. 461 U.S. at 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625. The Court later gave this language a crucial gloss in Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999), where it interpreted a provision of Title VII whose language was modeled on Smith. That provision permitted punitive damages only in cases where the defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference to ... federally protected rights. Id. at 534, 119 S.Ct. 2118. Noting that Congress had plainly intended this language to limit punitive damages to a subset of acts of intentional discrimination, the Court concluded that to obtain such damages a plaintiff would have to prove something more than intentional conduct alone. The plaintiff would be required to prove that the defendant discriminate[d] in the face of a perceived risk that its actions [would] violate federal law. Id. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118. We have long applied the Kolstad interpretation of reckless indifference under Title VII to section 1983. See Iacobucci, 193 F.3d at 26 n. 7 (noting the close connection between Title VII and Smith ). Under that approach, [t]he special showing needed to trigger eligibility for punitive damages, which the Smith Court called evil motive or reckless or callous indifference, pertains to the defendant's knowledge that [he] may be acting in violation of federal law.... Thus, the standard requires proof that the defendant acted in the face of a perceived risk that [his] actions [would] violate federal law. Id. at 26 (citations omitted); see also Casillas-Diaz v. Palau, 463 F.3d 77, 84 (1st Cir.2006); DiMarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas, 238 F.3d 25, 37-38 (1st Cir.2001). In describing this approach, we noted the difference between the state of mind necessary for liability and the state of mind necessary for punitive damages: The state of mind required to make out a cognizable section 1983 claim (at least one grounded in false arrest) differs importantly from that required to justify punitive damages. The former requirement relates only to conduct, not to the consequence; that is, it entails an intent to do the act, not to effect a civil rights violation. Iacobucci, 193 F.3d at 26. In Iacobucci, we noted that proof of a defendant's awareness of the risk of violating federal law may be circumstantial. See Iacobucci, 193 F.3d at 27. Several different kinds of circumstances may support a conclusion that the defendant was aware of this risk. For example, we have observed that if a defendant's conduct is egregious or outrageous, it may suggest an awareness of its illegality. See, e.g., Powell, 391 F.3d at 19 (citing Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118). The existence of an extensive body of federal law on a particular issue also may suggest that the defendant must have been aware of the risk of violating that law. DiMarco-Zappa, 238 F.3d at 38. And we upheld an award of punitive damages against a city attorney, reasoning that in light of her occupation she must have been aware that her conduct risked violating the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. Powell, 391 F.3d at 20. Mayor O'Neill makes two principal arguments in support of his contention that Méndez-Ayala failed to prove that he acted in the face of a perceived risk that his actions would violate federal law. First, he argues that the evidence only supports the view that he was unfamiliar with the contract documents and believed that Comagro should not have been present at the government center on November 26; therefore, he perceived no risk that by arresting Méndez-Ayala he might violate federal law. Second, he argues that the evidence only supports the view that his decision to arrest Méndez-Ayala was so sudden he could not possibly have perceived beforehand that it might violate federal law. We consider these arguments in turn.
The Mayor says that he was unfamiliar with the precise terms of the agreement between Guaynabo and Comagro. He asserts that he never saw the construction contract, the AIA agreement, the certificate of substantial completion, the attached punch list, the November 15 Dávila memo, or the November 18 default letter. He knew only that Comagro and the city were embroiled in a long dispute, that the city had ended the construction contract with the default letter, and that Comagro employees were not to do any kind of work on the government center. He insists, therefore, that he was only being observant when he investigated the open parking facility at the government center and detained the Comagro employees while police searched the building. He was unaware that the employees might be rightfully present there. The Mayor's argument does not account for the standard of review, which requires us to view the evidence in the light most hospitable to the jury's verdict. See Correa, 69 F.3d at 1188. Evaluated by that standard, the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the Mayor acted in the face of a perceived risk that by arresting Méndez-Ayala he might violate Méndez-Ayala's constitutional right to be free of an arrest not based on probable cause. The Mayor was aware of the constitutional constraints on his power of arrest. He offered testimony regarding his role as head of the municipal police force. When he insisted that he had not required a warrant to arrest Méndez-Ayala, he indicated an awareness of arrest standards. Even if he lacked a precise understanding of the concept of probable cause, the jury could conclude that the Mayor understood that he could not order an arrest if Méndez-Ayala was lawfully present on the premises. The jury could also reasonably conclude that the Mayor, despite some testimony of his to the contrary, understood that Méndez-Ayala and Comagro's employees might be rightfully present at the building. Most significantly, the Mayor told the jury that he knew Guaynabo did not yet have possession of the government center on November 26. He also testified that his advisors had discussed the default letter with him and that he knew what the letter stated by November 26, the day of the detainment. [11] The default letter, which was admitted into evidence, demanded immediate possession of the building, yet sections of the letter reasonably could have been construed to require Comagro employees to be present at the project, fixing identified construction deficiencies. [12] On this record the jury reasonably could have inferred that the Mayor understood that Comagro's employees might be rightfully present at the government center on November 26, and thus that he had no lawful basis for arresting Méndez-Ayala. Moreover, the jury heard other testimony which reasonably suggested another reason altogether for the arrest. When asked by Méndez-Ayala why he had been arrested, the Mayor said he was upset because he had done everything to work with us . . . and we were bringing up an arbitration case. A jury could reasonably conclude that the Mayor's pique at Comagro's temerity in seeking to arbitrate its contract dispute was the motivating cause that led him to arrest Méndez-Ayala and hold him in custody at the site for two hours, despite his awareness that Méndez-Ayala might be lawfully present at the site. This attitude of the Mayor demonstrated a conscious indifference to the possibility that the arrest would violate Méndez-Ayala's constitutional rights. See Iacobucci, 193 F.3d at 26.
Mayor O'Neill also argues that he could not possibly have perceived a risk of violating federal law because he decided to arrest Méndez-Ayala with little or no calculation. For support, the Mayor points to our decision in Iacobucci, 193 F.3d at 27, where we held that the plaintiff had not met the threshold requirement for a punitive damage award. There we found it dispositive that the defendant, a police officer, had made a split-second decision to arrest the plaintiff. Such a decision, we observed, does not lend itself to the inference that [the officer] acted with an evil motive or a conscious awareness that the arrest might violate [the plaintiff's] civil rights. Id. at 26. Punitive damages should not lie where the evidence showed only an exasperated police officer, acting in the heat of the moment, [who] made an objectively unreasonable mistake. Id. at 26-27. Seeking to analogize this case to Iacobucci, Mayor O'Neill points to Méndez-Ayala's testimony that the Mayor's decision to arrest the Comagro employees occurred [a]ll of a sudden, or immediately. The Mayor interprets this testimony to mean that he, like the police officer in Iacobucci, made a split-second decision, in the heat of the moment, and therefore could not have perceived a risk that his conduct would violate Méndez-Ayala's federal rights. Iacobucci does not stand for the proposition that a change of decision made without prior warning, in a short period of time, is always immune from punitive damages under section 1983. Such a rule would exempt a large class of conduct from punitive damages, including conduct for which we have previously affirmed awards. See, e.g., Davis, 264 F.3d at 115 (affirming an award of punitive damages against a nurse who, during an altercation, punched a patient in the head). Iacobucci involved a rapidly developing situation which demanded an immediate response. See Iacobucci, 193 F.3d at 26. The plaintiff, Iacobucci, had insisted on filming a meeting that city officials insisted should not be filmed. His conduct forced the defendant officer to act quickly, in the heat of the moment, to defuse a contentious situation. Id. Because he was forced to confront an emergency, the defendant did not have an opportunity to consider the range of risks his conduct created. Taken in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the facts in this case do not fit the Iacobucci pattern. The Mayor was not called to the location by a distressed party seeking assistance or protection. He was uncertain about the right of the Comagro employees to be on the site. [13] Moreover, before the police arrived, the Mayor had an opportunity to contemplate the legal consequences of different courses of action. After asking the Comagro employees to leave the building, no exigency presented itself that required him to decide then to arrest those employees. There was no need to act precipitously. Méndez-Ayala's question to the Mayor And I said, well, hey, wait a minute. What's going on?was not provocative. The Mayor's conduct and his inflammatory, profane language indicate that he simply lost control of his temper and his judgment. His statement to Méndez-Ayala that he was already angry at Comagro because it sought arbitration and Méndez-Ayala's claim that the Mayor was looking for trouble could have reasonably suggested to a jury that the Mayor was not acting in the heat of the moment, but was seeking retaliation. Then, instead of immediately releasing Méndez-Ayala and the Comagro employees, the Mayor kept them under arrest for about two hours, when he had an ample opportunity to contemplate the consequences of his conduct. Iacobucci does not insulate such conduct from punishment. We reject the contention in the cross-appeal that the threshold requirement for an award of punitive damages was not met.