Court Opinion

ID: 9496260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:21:49.128268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:27.552771
License: Public Domain

DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
As the majority notes, the plaintiff in this case advanced alternative theories upon which the jury’s award of punitive damages could be sustained under state law, despite the federal cap in § 1981a. The majority takes great pains to uphold the award under both theories, including what I find to be a somewhat strained analysis with regard to whether the jury instructions on “reckless indifference” and “conscious disregard” can support a finding of “actual malice,” the prerequisite in Ohio for an award of punitive damages. Nevertheless, I conclude that the jury could, and undoubtedly did, find that the defendant’s retaliation in this case met the Ohio definition of “actual malice” as “that state of mind under which a person’s conduct is characterized by ... a spirit of revenge.” Zoppo v. Homestead Insurance Co., 71 Ohio St.3d 552, 644 N.E.2d 397, 402 (Ohio 1994).
For this reason, and because I concur in the remainder of the majority’s analysis on the issues raised in both the appeal and the cross-appeal in this ease, I would reach the same result as the majority does in reinstating the jury’s full award of damages.