/>iJuries have awarded sizable verdicts to employee-plaintiffs in four recent racial discrimination cases. Although KBK attorneys were not involved in litigating these cases, we believe they offer valuable insights for those considering the risks and benefits of challenging workplace discrimination and harassment.
On April 10, 2024, a Pennsylvania federal jury award $20.5 million to a Black customer service representative who was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her race. On August 30, 2024, a federal jury in Indiana awarded over $1 million to a Black plaintiff who alleged that he was not hired because of his race. On September 9, 2024, a federal jury in Alabama awarded over $3.8 million to an Iranian research scientist who was harassed on the basis of her race and national origin. And then, on September 12, 2024, a Washington jury awarded nearly $238 million to a Black UPS driver who alleged that UPS discriminated against and harassed him on the basis of his race, then retaliated against him for reporting that discrimination and harassment.
While a court has already reduced the amounts of the Pennsylvania and Washington verdicts, and the others could be appealed or similarly reduced, these cases illustrate how juries value racial discrimination cases, and what kind of evidence supports such generous awards.
Case Overviews
- Holmes vs. American HomePatient
Almost immediately after Patricia Holmes began working as a customer service representative for American HomePatient (“AHP”), her supervisor and coworkers began using racially derogatory slurs. Ms. Holmes’s supervisor and coworkers used the “N” word and the term “coonie” in her presence on multiple occasions and referenced the Ku Klux Klan. Ms. Holmes, who is Black, complained to her supervisor’s supervisor and to AHP’s Human Resources (“HR”) department. HR conducted an investigation and issued a “written warning” to Ms. Holmes’s supervisor and one of her colleagues. When the harassment continued, Ms. Holmes resigned. She thereafter sued AHP, alleging that it created a hostile work environment permeated with racial harassment and discrimination, retaliated against her for reporting the hostile work environment, and constructively discharged her from her job. The District Court partially granted AHP’s summary judgment motion, agreeing that Ms. Holmes had presented insufficient evidence of constructive discharge or retaliation, but allowed her hostile work environment claims to proceed to trial.
Following a trial, the jury sided with Ms. Holmes, agreeing that AHP had intentionally discriminated against her and created a hostile work environment on the basis of her race and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent or correct the racial harassment. It awarded Ms. Holmes $500,000 in compensatory damages. Additionally, the jury found that AHP’s actions were malicious or showed a reckless indifference to Ms. Holmes’s right to be free from racial harassment. On that basis, the jury awarded her $20 million in punitive damages. The court found the punitive damages award to be excessive and reduced it from $20 million to $1 million to comply with constitutional due process. Following this order, AHP is liable for a total of $1.5 million.[i]
- Lange v. Anchor Glass Container Corporation
Cory Lange applied and interviewed for a selector packer position with the Anchor Glass Container Corporation (“Anchor Glass”), but Anchor Glass hired three white applicants over Mr. Lange, who is Black. Mr. Lange filed a racial discrimination lawsuit. The District Court granted Anchor Glass’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Anchor Glass offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for hiring other applicants other Mr. Lange. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that Mr. Lange presented sufficient evidence to support an inference of racial discrimination. The court noted that Anchor Glass had offered multiple reasons for not hiring Mr. Lange, which it had introduced at different times, and some of the rationales were contradicted by other evidence. The Seventh Circuit held that a reasonable jury could infer that Anchor Glass’s shifting rationales and inconsistencies demonstrated that the justifications were pretext for racial discrimination.
Following trial, the jury concluded that Anchor Glass did not hire Mr. Lange because of his race. It awarded Mr. Lange $90,000 in damages for his mental and emotional pain and suffering, and $1 million in punitive damages. Mr. Lange’s claims for wages he lost as a result of the discrimination are outstanding and will be determined at a bench trial set for January 13, 2025.[ii]
- Moeinpour v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama et al.
Fariba Moeinpour, a Middle Eastern woman of Iranian national origin, worked for the University of Alabama at Birmingham (“UAB”) as a research scientist from 2011 to 2020. From Ms. Moeinpour’s first day at UAB, one of her coworkers harassed her about her race and national origin. Over the years, the coworker made fun of Ms. Moeinpour’s name and accent, told her to return to her country, spat on her, and called her a “sand n*****.” She also followed Ms. Moeinpour in her car, and once showed her the handle of a gun.
Ms. Moeinpour complained to her supervisor and to HR, but UAB took no action. On one occasion, Ms. Moeinpour told her supervisor that she was going to visit the office of someone in senior leadership to report the harassment, and her supervisor pushed her to the ground. Ms. Moeinpour’s supervisor then called the UAB police to allege that Ms. Moeinpour had committed assault. The supervisor’s call led to Ms. Moeinpour’s arrest, spending a night in jail, and ultimately, the termination of her employment.
Ms. Moeinpour sued UAB for harassment on the basis of race and national origin and unlawful retaliation. She also sued her coworker in her individual capacity for her actions creating a hostile work environment.
The court granted UAB’s motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim because Ms. Moeinpour failed to file a timely complaint against UAB with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which is a prerequisite to the filing of certain discrimination claims under the federal statutes outlawing employment discrimination. The court also granted UAB’s motion for summary judgment on her Title VI retaliation claims, concluding that Title VI’s protections—reserved for programs that receive federal funds primarily for the purpose of providing employment—do not apply to the UAB center where Ms. Moeinpour worked, which received federal funds primarily for research purposes. The court allowed Ms. Moeinpour’s retaliation claim to proceed to trial, along with her hostile work environment claim against her coworker in her individual capacity.
Following trial, a jury found that UAB had retaliated against Ms. Moeinpour for complaining about racial harassment and awarded her $3 million to compensate her for the emotional pain and mental anguish caused by UAB. The jury also found Ms. Moeinpour’s coworker liable for creating a hostile work environment, and it ordered that coworker to pay Ms. Moeinpour $500,000 to compensate her for emotional pain and mental anguish and $325,000 in punitive damages. Thus, the jury’s award to Ms. Moeinpour totaled more than $3.8 million in damages. [iii]
- Gratton v. UPS, Inc.
Working as a Cover Driver and Delivery Driver for United Parcel Service (“UPS”), Tahvio Gratton, a Black man, noticed that his managers treated him noticeably worse than his white colleagues, spoke down to him, scheduled him for fewer routes, assigned him worse routes and trucks, assigned him less work, and one of them repeatedly referred to him as “Boy.” After Mr. Gratton filed an internal complaint alleging racial discrimination and harassment, his managers overworked him by assigning him longer routes and additional work and reprimanded him for doing things other employees did without consequences, like wearing a sweater with his uniform. Mr. Gratton reported the racial harassment to management and was terminated soon after.
Mr. Gratton sued UPS, alleging racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation of Washington public policy. The court granted UPS summary judgment on the discrimination and hostile work environment claims, concluding that Mr. Gratton did not provide sufficient evidence that he was treated differently than his white peers, and his evidence of a hostile work environment was “insufficiently severe and pervasive.” The court allowed Mr. Gratton’s retaliation and wrongful discharge claims to proceed to trial.
Following trial, the jury found that UPS unlawfully retaliated against Mr. Gratton and wrongfully terminated his employment. The jury awarded Mr. Gratton $39.6 million in emotional distress damages and $198 million in punitive damages. Following trial, the court struck the punitive damages awarded, concluding that Mr. Gratton presented insufficient evidence that those with retaliatory intent towards him were involved in the decision to terminate his employment, and therefore was unable to show that any decisionmaker acted with “malice or reckless indifference.” UPS is nonetheless liable for a total of $39.6 million, the amount the jury awarded in emotional distress damages.[iv]
Basis of Verdicts
Generally, the purpose of monetary damages in a civil lawsuit is to make the injured party whole. An employee with racial discrimination claims against their employer is generally entitled to seek compensation for lost pay and for the emotional pain and suffering they experience as a result of their employer’s discrimination. In some cases, applicable laws entitle employees to also seek punitive damages to punish employers for their wrongful actions and deter future wrongdoing. Under the principal federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race—Title VII—such damages are capped at different levels depending on the size of the employer, ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. However, under an older federal law prohibiting race discrimination, known as section 1981, there are no such limitations, and under a number of state laws against discrimination, there are no such limitations on non-economic damages.
While economic damages are often considered the largest component of a potential award, it is notable that all four of the above verdicts are composed solely of emotional distress and punitive damages awards, though the Lange plaintiff will also be entitled to wages he lost as a result of the discrimination, in an amount to be determined by the court. Therefore, litigants should not underestimate the value of emotional distress and punitive damages awards.
- Emotional Distress Damages
Emotional distress damages are intended to compensate plaintiffs for the emotional and psychological toll that an employer’s illegal actions have on their mental wellbeing. The juries in the above cases found that the employers’ discriminatory actions caused significant emotional and mental anguish for which the employees deserved to be compensated. Most notably, in Moeinpour, the jury awarded the plaintiff $3 million in emotional distress damages, and the Gratton jury awarded the plaintiff $39.6 million in emotional distress damages. By awarding these substantial amounts, the juries sent a message that experiencing racism at the workplace is an indignity that comes with significant emotional harm for which the employees deserved to be compensated.
When assessing harm to the plaintiff in an employment case, the most obvious form of damages may be compensation for the lost wages the employee would have received had their employer not discriminated against them. However, the sizable emotional distress damages in these cases illustrate that experiencing racism at the workplace also causes significant emotional harm for which employees deserve to be compensated, independent of any economic harm. Because racial discrimination causes significant emotional and mental harm for which employer should have to compensate employees, racial discrimination cases can result in large jury verdicts even absent significant economic damages.
- Punitive Damages
Punitive damages are intended to punish an employer for its illegal actions and to deter future wrongdoing. Generally, juries award greater punitive damages when an employer’s behavior is malicious or egregious.
Employers are particularly vulnerable to sizable punitive damages awards when they are aware of racial harassment or discrimination and fail to appropriately address it. In Holmes, the employee complained to HR, then HR conducted an investigation and issued a “written warning,” but nothing changed. Though the employer took some action in response, it did not do enough to stop it, and the jury therefore found that the employer’s actions were “malicious or showed reckless indifference” to Ms. Holmes’s rights.[v] The jury awarded $20 million in punitive damages. Meanwhile, in Gratton, the plaintiff experienced increased retaliation after reporting his mistreatment to management. The jury concluded that those facts demonstrated that the employer’s conduct was “malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard” of Mr. Gratton’s rights and awarded $198 million in punitive damages.[vi]
Courts may reduce large punitive damages awards that they deem “excessive” on the grounds that excessive punitive damages awards are unconstitutional as arbitrary deprivations of property that violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has instructed that courts reviewing punitive damages awards should consider: “(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.”[vii] The Court declined to adopt a strict mathematical rule regarding this second factor, but advised that “in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” The Court emphasized that “the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct,” which may be determined by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident. When one or more of these factors is met, a court may uphold a larger punitive damages award.
The Holmes court applied the above test to reduce the jury’s punitive damages award.[viii] Upon finding that some, but not all, of the reprehensibility factors weighed in Ms. Holmes’s favor and that the compensatory damages award was “substantial,” the court concluded that a “two-to-one ratio” between punitive and compensatory damages was “reaches the outer constitutional limits” under applicable Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court reduced the jury’s $20 million punitive to $1 million, equal to double the jury’s $500,000 compensatory damages award.
Despite the possibility that a court may reduce a substantial punitive damages award, punitive damages remain an important component of a potential racial discrimination verdict. Even where a punitive damages award is reduced, an employer will be made to pay the maximum amount of punitive damages allowed by law.
Implications for Litigation
Among the most significant challenges in the above four cases was getting the case to trial. In all four cases, the employers moved for summary judgment, and the trial courts granted summary judgment on at least some of the employee’s claims, preventing them from ever being heard by a jury.
In Lange, for example, the employer was almost successful in preventing the case from going to trial at all. The trial court found that Mr. Lange presented insufficient evidence that Anchor Glass’s decision not to hire him had anything to do with his race. Mr. Lange appealed, and the Seventh Circuit reversed, allowing his claims to proceed to trial. Based on the evidence at trial, the jury found not only that Anchor Glass did not hire Mr. Lange because of his race, but also that it acted with “reckless disregard of Mr. Lange’s rights” and “with knowledge that it may violate the law.”[ix] Unlike the court, the jury did not credit the employer’s nondiscriminatory explanation for its failure to hire Mr. Lange.
Similarly, in Gratton, the court found that Mr. Gratton provided insufficient evidence that he experienced discrimination or harassment on the basis of his race, and prevented a jury from hearing those claims. Mr. Gratton’s retaliation and wrongful discharge claims proceeded to trial on the theory that even if UPS did not discriminate against or harass him on the basis of his race, UPS violated the law by retaliating against him and terminating his employment because he complained of discrimination and harassment. The jury found UPS liable for retaliation and wrongful discharge and awarded him $237.6 million, including $39.6 million in emotional distress damages and $198 million in punitive damages. This substantial award could support an inference that the jury believed UPS to have discriminated against and harassed Mr. Gratton on the basis of his race, thereby reaching a different conclusion than the court. But it is not possible to know for sure because the court prevented these questions from reaching the jury.
Finally, in Moeinpour, the court granted summary judgment to UAB on Ms. Moeinpour’s hostile work environment claim, not based on the evidence she presented, but because she failed to file a timely charge against UAB with the EEOC. Nonetheless, it is difficult to say how the Moeinpour verdict would be different if the jury were to have heard Ms. Moeinpour’s hostile work environment claim against UAB. The jury awarded Ms. Moeinpour $3 million in emotional distress damages upon finding that UAB retaliated against her for complaining about racial harassment. As in Gratton, one could infer from this substantial award that the jury also implicitly found UAB liable for racial harassment. But also as in Gratton, it is not possible to know for sure because the question was not submitted to the jury.
Conclusion
Juries across the country have condemned race discrimination. If an employee experiences race discrimination or racial harassment at work and brings their case to trial, a jury is likely to reach a verdict appropriately compensating them for the emotional and mental anguish that flows from the indignity of being treated differently and harassed on the basis of one’s race. Juries tend to understand that this emotional harm may be substantial, separately and independently from the question of whether the discrimination also caused the employee economic harm from lost wages.
Juries are also likely to punish employers who discriminate against or harass employees on the basis of race, particularly when the employer fails to take appropriate action after the employee complains of the mistreatment. This punishment takes the form of punitive damages, which are also awarded to the employee who suffered the mistreatment.
No one should ever have to experience racial discrimination or harassment at their place of employment. But for those who do, the law provides a means to hold employers accountable and compensate victims. Employees considering bringing discrimination or harassment claims against their employer should work with an experienced attorney to maximize their chances of a favorable outcome. Experienced counsel can help employees navigate their options, evaluate their claims, and if appropriate, bring their claims to trial.
[i] Complaint, Holmes v. Am. HomePatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683, 2024 WL 12288746 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2021); Order, Holmes v. Am. HomePatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683, 2023 WL 4315545, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2023); Verdict Form, Holmes v. Am. HomePatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683,2024 WL 3520745 (M.D. Pa. April 10, 2024); Memorandum Opinion, Holmes v. Am. HomePatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2024).
[ii] Complaint, Lange v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 4:20-cv-00160 (S.D. Ind. Jul. 13, 2020); Lange v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., No. 22-2902, 2023 WL 4449211, at *3 (7th Cir. July 11, 2023); Verdict Form, Lange v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 4:20-cv-00160 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 30, 2024); Entry, Lange v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 4:20-cv-00160 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2024).
[iii] Moeinpour v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama, No. 2:21-CV-01302, 2024 WL 2164626 (N.D. Ala. May 14, 2024); Amended Complaint, Moeinpour v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama, No. 2:21-CV-01302 (N.D. Ala. August 6, 2024); Moeinpour v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama, No. 2:21-CV-01302 (N.D. Ala. May 14, 2024); Verdict as to Plaintiff’s Claim Against UAB, Moeinpour v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama, No. 2:21-CV-01302 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2024); Verdict as to Plaintiff’s Claim Against Mary Jo Cagle, Moeinpour v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama, No. 2:21-CV-01302 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2024).
[iv] First Amended Complaint, Gratton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-3149-TOR (E.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2023); Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, Gratton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-3149-TOR, 2024 WL 1724771, at *11 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 22, 2024); Verdict Form, Gratton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-3149, *1 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2024); Order on Post-Trial Motions, Gratton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-3149-TOR, at *27 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2024).
[v] Verdict Form, Holmes v. Am. HomePatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683, *7 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2024).
[vi] Verdict Form, Gratton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-3149, *2 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2024).
[vii] State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003).
[viii] Memorandum Opinion, Holmes v. Am. HomePatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683, *51 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2024).
[ix] Jury Instructions, Lange v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 4:20-cv-00160 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 30, 2024); see also Verdict Form, Lange v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 4:20-cv-00160 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 30, 2024).
