Document: 523 U.S. 208118 S.Ct. 1210140 L.Ed.2d 336 Janice E. HETZELv.PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA, and Charlie T. Deane. No. 97-954. Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 1998. PER CURIAM. 1 A jury in Eastern District Virginia found for petitioner Hetzel on her claims against respondent County Prince William under Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., §1983. The reduced damages from $750,000 to $500,000, grounds that one supporting award was legally insufficient. On respondents' appeal Appeals Fourth Circuit, court affirmed finding liability, but held damage grossly excessive because it unsupported by limited evidence harm presented at trial. v. William, 89 F.3d 169 (1996), cert. denied, 519 ----, 117 584, 136 514 (1996). "set aside remand[ed] case district recalculation emotional distress.'' F.3d, 173. 2 remand, recalculated awarded $50,000. Petitioner filed a motion new trial which she declined award. She argued reducing damages, effect had offered remittitur, therefore entitled Seventh Amendment's guaranty right jury. Respondents agreed Appeals' decision functioned as contended did not allow option In memorandum opinion, determined although mandate clearly reversed judgment remanded address Amendment issue, arisen until rejected sought Concluding circuit precedent clear when finds jury's verdict reduces it, plaintiff has either accept or have trial, granted petitioner's issue damages. 3 petitioned writ mandamus, contending authority its prior order an unpublished order, petition stayed scheduled retrial. It stated ordered recalculate "and enter final thereon.'' also reiterated pursuant earlier mandate, should closely examine two cases previously noted comparable what would be appropriate case.1 4 contends this action violated trial.2 We agree. provides "the shall preserved, no fact tried jury, otherwise reexamined any States, than according rules common law.'' Const., Amdt. 7. 5 Kennon Gilmer, 131 22, 27-28, 9 696, 697-698, 33 L.Ed. 110 (1889), won general $20,000, denied appeal, Territory Montana $10,000 insufficient sustain such high award, amount. Id., S.Ct., 697-698. This concluded amount "without submitting another putting election remitting part before rendering rest, irregular, and, so far we are informed, unprecedented.'' 698. accord with prohibition reexamination facts authority, upon "according own estimate ought recovered, absolute other sum assessed jury.'' 29, 699. 6 determining support ordering imposed remittitur. correctly afforded entered requiring lesser without allowing cannot squared Amendment. See id., 29-30, 698-699; see Dimick Schiedt, 293 474, 486, 55 296, 301, 79 603 (1935) (reaffirming practice conditionally noting where is set inadequate excessive, both parties remain determine issues liability extent injury); Gasperini Center Humanities, Inc., 518 415, 433, 116 2211, 2222, 135 659 (1996) (the judge's discretion includes "overturning verdicts excessiveness qualification, conditioned winner's refusal agree reduction (remittitur)''); 462-463, --------- (SCALIA, J., dissenting). 7 contend here supported Neely Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 317, 329-330, 87 1072, 1080-1081, 18 75 (1967). But dealt application Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(d) situation liability. involve overturning sufficient 8 grant certiorari reverse issuing mandamus Court. Reversed. After issued again $15,000, greater amounts Appeals. Petitioner's pending do think stay our decision, however, since Appeals, time claim Court's opinion granting argue consider failed raise certiorari. (C.A.4 1996), apparent, reasonably construed depriving if were reject remitted only To interpret precluding require assume deviation normal minimum implicated constitutional concerns. original explicit compel interpretation.

Category: 8