Opinion ID: 759223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Third Trial

Text: 37 The third trial was begun before Judge Elfvin in August 1996. Before that trial, this Court decided Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir.1995), ruling that individual defendants with supervisory control over a plaintiff may not be held personally liable under Title VII, id. at 1313. Accordingly, Gierlinger's Title VII claim against Gleason was dismissed, leaving her with claims under § 1983 and state law for denial of equal protection and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 38 At the third trial, the parties presented evidence as described in Parts I.A. and I.B. above. After the close of the evidence, the district court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support Gierlinger's claim of gender discrimination, and it submitted to the jury only her claims for retaliation and emotional distress. The court gave the jury a special verdict form that included the following questions: 39 1. Do you find that the plaintiff has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally retaliated against her in violation of her Constitutional rights for, among any other reasons, her having made a complaint or complaints of sexual harassment? 40 2. If you answered Yes to Question 1, do you find that the defendant has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he would have taken the same action for non-discriminatory reasons? 41 3. If you answered Yes to Question 1 and No to Question 2, do you find that the plaintiff has proven (by a preponderance of the evidence) that the defendant's act was a proximate cause of any injuries and consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff? 42 The jury returned a verdict in favor of Gierlinger, answering Yes to the first question, No to the second, and Yes to the third. The special verdict form asked the jury to determine the extent, if any, of Gierlinger's financial damages for loss of past and future income. (Court Exhibit 1 filed September 6, 1996, at 2.) The jury's response was $117,738. The jury also awarded Gierlinger one dollar as damages for the defendant's infliction upon her of emotional distress. (Id.)