The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TIMETHIA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:19-cv-2888-TPB-AAS
ADVANCED CONCEPT
INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
This matter is before the Court on the following motions:
“Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law” (Doc. 77);
“Defendant’s Supplement to Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law and Incorporated Memorandum of Law”
(Doc. 89); and
“Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter
of Law, or Alternatively New Trial, or Alternatively
Remittitur of Punitive Damages and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law” (Doc. 98).
Plaintiff filed responses in opposition to each motion. (Docs. 78; 91; 103).
Defendant filed a reply. (Doc. 104). Upon review of the motions, responses, reply,
court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows:
Background
Plaintiff Timethia Brown is a former employee of Defendant Advanced
Concept Innovations, LLC, a contract packaging and manufacturing company.
Plaintiff suffered from a condition known as ptyalism during a difficult pregnancy.
This condition required her to frequently spit during the erm of her pregnancy. She
was terminated on May 14, 2018, after she returned from leave under the Family
and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). She asserted four claims for relief – disability
discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count I), race discrimination
under the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count II), gender discrimination under Title VII
(Count III), and pregnancy discrimination under Title VII, as amended by the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (Count IV). Following trial, a jury rendered a verdict
in Plaintiff’s favor on Count I only, in the amount of $34,440.00 compensatory
damages and $10,000.00 for emotional pain and mental anguish. The jury also
awarded punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.00. Defendant has appealed
the judgment.
Analysis
In the pending motions, Defendant primarily argues that the evidence
presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences based on that evidence,
demonstrate that Plaintiff failed to prove her failure to accommodate claim. Upon
review, the Court concludes that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s
verdict as to Count I. As such, the motion for judgment as a matter of law and
motion for new trial are denied as to those grounds.
However, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor
concerning Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Based on the evidence presented, no
reasonable jury could have found that Defendant acted with the requisite malice or
reckless indifference to support an award of punitive damages. See, e.g., Fed. R.
Civ. P. 50; Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1280 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1280 (11th Cir. 2002))
(“Malice or reckless indifference is established by a showing that the employer
discriminated in the face of the knowledge that its actions would violate federal
law.”). To the contrary, the evidence presented at trial established that Defendant
treated Plaintiff, in some ways, more favorably than other similarly situated
employees. The evidence showed that Defendant viewed Plaintiff as a good
employee and awarded her pay raises and a promotion. There is no evidence that a
reasonable jury could rely on to find that Defendant engaged in a pattern of
discrimination, acted with spite or malevolence, or acted with blatant disregard for
Plaintiff’s civil rights. To the extent that the jury found Defendant’s actions were in
any way unlawful or negligent, “mere negligence as to the civil rights of employees
is not enough to justify punitive damages.” U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d
600, 611 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 156 F.3d 989, 992
(9th Cir. 1998)).1 As such, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law as to the punitive damages claim. The request for
remittitur is denied as moot.
1 It seems doubtful that any of the lawyers that litigated this case, on either side, seriously
believed the facts presented merited an award of punitive damages. Indeed, Plaintiff’s
counsel did not provide evidence to the jury regarding Defendant’s financial situation. That
omission caused the jury to submit a written question to the Court during their
deliberations that stated as follows: “May we have information about ACI’s financials? P &
L? 1 year. Pg. 17 of Court’s Instructions says we need to regard ACI’s financial resources
in fixing amount of damages.” See (Doc. 82-4).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Defendant’s motions (Docs. 77; 89; 98) are hereby GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
(2) The motions are GRANTED to the extent that Defendant is entitled to
judgment on Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. The Clerk is directed to
amend the judgment to remove the award of $50,000.00 in punitive
damages. No other changes should be made.
(3) The motions are otherwise DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of
July, 2021.
a
aj ett
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4