finding that Defendant waived objection to front pay instruction where “CPI objected to approximately sixteen different jury instructions at trial, but at no time did it make the argument it now advances. In fact, CPI’s own proposed jury instruction on damages includes an instruction on front pay.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that Defendant waived objection to front pay instruction where “CPI objected to approximately sixteen different jury instructions at trial, but at no time did it make the argument it now advances. In fact, CPI’s own proposed jury instruction on damages includes an instruction on front pay.”
- stating that relevant evidence sufficient for allowing award of punitive damages included fact that “the jury could have found that defense witnesses lied ... about their *546 actions, as part of a continuing effort to cover up their campaign against her”
- holding that employees with positions sufficiently high up in the company are considered proxies and thus would prevent the company from asserting a vicarious liability defense to punitive damages
- addressing Title VII's venue provision which provides that suit may be brought in, e.g. , " 'any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed' "; holding that "the [Title VII venue] statute itself and analogous case law [on personal jurisdiction] suggest that venue should be found where the effect of the unlawful employment practice is felt: where the plaintiff works, and the decision to engage in that practice is implemented"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMAS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I would affirm the district court judgment in its entirety. In my view, the evidence was sufficient to support a punitive damage award even under Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 , 119 S.Ct. 2118 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999). I would also hold that the Title VII limitation on damage awards does not violate the Seventh Amendment. Thus, I do not believe any remand is required.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.