Filed: Apr. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 11-2069 _ ROBERT K. DEE, JR., Appellant v. BOROUGH OF DUNMORE; BOROUGH OF DUNMORE COUNCIL; JOSEPH LOFTUS, individually and as Borough Manager; THOMAS HENNIGAN, JOSEPH TALUTTO, FRANK PADULA, LEONARD VERRASTRO, MICHAEL CUMMINGS, individually and as Councilman, _ No. 11-2279 _ ROBERT K. DEE, JR., v. BOROUGH OF DUNMORE; BOROUGH OF DUNMORE COUNCIL; JOSEPH LOFTUS, individually and as Borough Manager; THOMAS HENNIGAN, JOSEPH TA
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 11-2069 _ ROBERT K. DEE, JR., Appellant v. BOROUGH OF DUNMORE; BOROUGH OF DUNMORE COUNCIL; JOSEPH LOFTUS, individually and as Borough Manager; THOMAS HENNIGAN, JOSEPH TALUTTO, FRANK PADULA, LEONARD VERRASTRO, MICHAEL CUMMINGS, individually and as Councilman, _ No. 11-2279 _ ROBERT K. DEE, JR., v. BOROUGH OF DUNMORE; BOROUGH OF DUNMORE COUNCIL; JOSEPH LOFTUS, individually and as Borough Manager; THOMAS HENNIGAN, JOSEPH TAL..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-2069
___________
ROBERT K. DEE, JR.,
Appellant
v.
BOROUGH OF DUNMORE;
BOROUGH OF DUNMORE COUNCIL;
JOSEPH LOFTUS, individually and as Borough Manager;
THOMAS HENNIGAN, JOSEPH TALUTTO, FRANK PADULA,
LEONARD VERRASTRO, MICHAEL CUMMINGS,
individually and as Councilman,
____________
No. 11-2279
____________
ROBERT K. DEE, JR.,
v.
BOROUGH OF DUNMORE;
BOROUGH OF DUNMORE COUNCIL;
JOSEPH LOFTUS, individually and as Borough Manager;
THOMAS HENNIGAN, JOSEPH TALUTTO, FRANK PADULA,
LEONARD VERRASTRO, MICHAEL CUMMINGS,
individually and as Councilman,
Appellants
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 3-05-cv-01342)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
___________
Argued February 9, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, VANASKIE, Circuit Judges, and
POLLAK, ∗ District Judge
(Filed : April 6, 2012)
_________
Cynthia L. Pollick, Esq. (Argued)
The Employment Law Firm
363 Laurel Street
Pittston, PA l8640
Attorney for Appellant, No. 11-2069
Cross-Appellee No. 11-2279
Karoline Mehalchick, Esq. (Argued)
Oliver, Price & Rhodes
1212 South Abington Road
Clarks Summit, PA 18411
Attorney for Appellees, No. 11-2069
Cross-Appellants No. 11-2279
________
OPINION
_________
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Robert Dee, Assistant Fire Chief, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various
state laws against the Borough of Dunmore, the Borough Manager, and five members of
∗
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge, United States District Court for
2
the Borough Council (collectively “Borough”), alleging he was suspended without notice
by the Borough, based on its determination that Dee failed to complete two training
requirements. The jury awarded Dee $150,000 in compensatory damages and $6,000 in
punitive damages. At the Defendants’ request, the District Court granted a remittitur,
reducing the jury verdict from $150,000 to $50,000 and dismissing the punitive damage
award of $6,000. Dee rejected the remittitur and proceeded to the second jury trial
limited to the issue of compensatory damages. The second jury awarded Dee $47,500 in
compensatory damages. Dee appeals. The Borough cross-appeals the District Court’s
denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on Dee’s claim that his right to
procedural due process was violated.
I.
Background
Dee became a firefighter for the Borough in 1987. In May 2005, Joseph Loftus,
the Borough Manager, began an investigation into the certification of all Borough
employees, including the members of the Fire Department. Loftus requested that Chief
Arnone (“Arnone”) of the Fire Department send him a memo outlining the necessary
qualifications and certifications for full-time work, and documentation on the full-time
staff who met those criteria.
Arnone responded there was no indication that Dee had the requisite EMT training
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
3
or had attended State Fire Academy Training. After Loftus notified the members of the
Borough Council, they voted to remove Dee from the schedule with pay, pending a
hearing eight days later. 1 The Borough explained the reason for the immediate
suspension on the ground that its main concern was the protection and safety of the
firefighters, taxpayers and citizens. One council member, Joseph Talutto, stated that not
only was there a duty “to protect the town,” but the Borough Council also did not want
“to get blasted in the paper.” App. at 144-45. The suspension was publicized in the local
media.
On July 6, 2005, at a later personnel hearing, the Borough Council was provided
with additional documentation and determined that Dee was in compliance with the
requirements. Council reinstated Dee to the schedule. Dee had not been suspended from
employment nor suffered any lapse in pay, other benefit or service time for seniority or
retirement date purposes.
At trial in January 2010, the jury determined that Dee’s due process rights had
been violated because he was suspended without notice, explanation of the evidence
against him, or an opportunity to rebut the erroneous allegations that he was unfit to serve
as a firefighter after 18 years of service. The jury awarded Dee $150,000 in
compensatory damages and $6,000 in punitive damages ($1,000 against each individual
The members of the Borough Council at the relevant time were Michael
1
Cummings, Thomas Hennigan, Frank Padula, Joseph Talluto, Leonard Verrastro, Tim
Burke, and Paul J. Nardozzi.
4
defendant).
Following the trial, the Borough moved for a remittitur, which was granted by the
District Court who reduced the jury verdict from $150,000 to $50,000 and dismissed the
punitive damage award of $6,000. Dee rejected the remittitur and proceeded to a second
jury trial solely on the issue of compensatory damages. In his second jury trial, Dee was
awarded $47,500 in compensatory damages. Dee appeals and the Borough cross-
appeals. 2
II.
Discussion
A.
The use of a conditional remittitur is appropriate when the trial judge finds that a
decision of the jury is clearly unsupported or excessive. See Cortez v. Trans Union LLC,
617 F.3d 688, 715 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). This Court reviews the trial court’s
reduction of damages for abuse of discretion.
Id. at 716. In this case, the District Court
reduced the jury award because it held that it was inconsistent with the evidence in the
case. It offered Dee the alternative of a new trial, which Dee accepted. See Hetzel v.
Prince William County,
523 U.S. 208, 211 (1998) (per curiam) (explaining that when a
trial court determines that the evidence does not support the jury’s general damages
award, it “has no authority . . . to enter an absolute judgment for any other sum than that
2
This Court has jurisdiction over both Dee’s appeal and the Borough’s cross-
5
assessed by the jury” without allowing plaintiff the option of a new trial (citation
omitted)).
B.
“In general, the determination of compensatory damages is within the province of
the jury and is entitled to great deference.” Spence v .Bd. of Educ., 806 F.2d 1198, 1204
(3d Cir. 1986). However, “[t]he district judge is in the best position to evaluate the
evidence presented and determine whether or not the jury has come to a rationally based
conclusion.”
Id. at 1201. Remittitur is utilized when the trial judge finds that a decision
of the jury is excessive or clearly unsupported by the evidence. Id.; see also Murray v.
Fairbanks Morse,
610 F.2d 149, 152 (3d Cir. 1979). The reduction may not be less than
the maximum amount that does not “shock the judicial conscience.” Evans v. Port Auth.
of N.Y. & N.J.,
273 F.3d 346, 355 (3d Cir. 2001).
The District Court relied on Glass v. Snellbaker, No. 05-1971 (JBS), 2008 WL
4371760 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2008), in determining that a remittitur was appropriate. See
Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 05-CV-1342,
2010 WL 1626908, at *7 (M.D. Pa. April
21, 2010) (“Dee I”). In Glass, the plaintiff sought emotional distress damages under his
claim for first amendment retaliation after being transferred to a less prestigious
employment position as a result of a speech he made. Glass had experienced elevated
blood pressure due to stress, but he continued to work after the transfer, suffered no
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
6
immediate financial stress because his salary and benefits remained unchanged and,
despite his concerns, there was no evidence that his reputation in the police force was
diminished. Glass, 2008 WL 4371760, at *1-3, *20-22. Plaintiff’s testimony about his
daily humiliation, ostracism, and emotional distress over a two-year period, as a
consequence of the defendant’s retaliation was sufficient to justify a compensatory
damage award of $50,000, reduced from the original jury verdict of $250,000.
Id. at *23.
Furthermore, the court noted that in cases of emotional harm not arising from
discrimination that resulted in an award of over $50,000 for non-economic damages, the
plaintiff usually suffered prolonged physical symptoms, or sought medical or
psychological treatment.
Id. at *22.
In this case, there is no evidence that Dee suffers long term or lasting effects from
the suspension. Similar to the plaintiff in Glass, Dee presented evidence about his
humiliation, stress, and the elevated blood pressure he experienced after the suspension.
Also similar to Glass, Dee suffered no loss of benefits, seniority or pay, and there is no
evidence of any loss of reputation among his peers. Accordingly, under the reasoning in
Glass, an award of $50,000 was the highest possible recovery that would not “shock the
judicial conscience.” Id. at *6; see also Wade v. Orange County Sheriff’s Office,
844
F.2d 951, 955 (2d Cir. 1988) (upholding award of $50,000 for an employee who had been
subject to racially motivated humiliation at work, including public embarrassment due to
a publication in newspaper); Niebur v. Town of Cicero,
212 F. Supp. 2d 790, 818, 821-22
7
(N.D. Ill. 2002) (upholding $50,000 each in emotional distress damages awarded to a
deputy police chief and police chief for violations of their due process rights arising from
suspension, termination, and publication of false charges).
For his part, Dee calls our attention to Gagliardo v. Connaught Labs. Inc., 311
F.3d 565 (3d Cir. 2002), where we did not disturb a jury’s verdict of $1.55 million for
pain and suffering on a discrimination employment claim. But Gagliardo, unlike Dee,
had life-long changes of a mental trauma, “transforming Gagliardo from a happy and
confident person to one who was withdrawn and indecisive.”
Id. at 574. Dee also cites
Evans, an employment discrimination case where we affirmed a remittitur of $375,000
for emotional distress for plaintiff who suffered from chest pains and shortness of breath,
was sent to the medical department on four different occasions, had to start taking blood
pressure medication, and was consistently moody and irritable, which altered her
relationship with her husband and
children. 273 F.3d at 352 n.5, 356. Those plaintiffs
had prolonged symptoms whereas Dee did not suffer from life-altering or long term
distress but only temporary elevated blood pressure which returned to a normal range
within days and Dee resumed his employment as Assistant Fire Chief.
We reject Dee’s claim that the District Court established an arbitrary cap on
emotional distress damages. Instead, the second jury’s decision to award Dee $47,500 in
damages supports the District Court’s conclusion based on its analysis of cases involving
similar claims and damages. Dee I, 2010 WL 1626908, at *6-8. The District Court
8
recognized that Dee suffered from emotional distress and cited to his elevated blood
pressure for a few days after his suspension but noted that it was not long term. Id. at *8.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it made a discretionary decision to
reduce the jury verdict from $150,000 to $50,000.
C.
Dee also appeals the District Court’s decision to vacate the punitive damage award
of $6,000 at the end of the jury trial. Punitive damages may be awarded in a §1983 action
when the defendant’s conduct is “shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when
it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”
Alexander v. Riga, 208 F.3d 419, 430-431 (3d. Cir. 2000) (quoting Smith v. Wade,
461
U.S. 30, 56 (1983)). The determination of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to
support an award of punitive damages is a question of law which this court reviews de
novo.
Id. at 430. In evaluating the reasonableness of a punitive damages award, the
Supreme Court has noted as relevant the following three factors: (1) the degree of
reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; (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 and the civil penalties authorized or
imposed in comparable cases. BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,
517 U.S. 559, 575, 580, 583
(1996). The Court has recognized that the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s
conduct is the “most important indicium” of the constitutionality of a punitive damages
9
award. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003) (citing
Gore, 517 U.S. at 575). In measuring the degree of reprehensibility, we are to consider:
whether the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; whether the defendant’s
actions evinced indifference to or reckless disregard for the health or safety of others; the
financial vulnerability of the victim; whether the conduct was repetitive or isolated; and
whether the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, deceit, or mere accident.
Id. The absence of all of these factors renders suspect a punitive damages award, but the
existence of any one is not necessarily sufficient.
Id.
In Feldman v. Philadelphia Housing Authority,
43 F.3d 823, 834 (3d Cir. 1994),
this court affirmed the award of punitive damages when evidence showed that the
plaintiff-employee was discharged in retaliation for writing audit reports that criticized
authority and officials of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. In Springer v. Henry,
435
F.3d 268, 282 (3d Cir. 2006), we upheld an award for punitive damages when plaintiff
was singled out for intentional disparate treatment. Unlike Feldman and Springer, the
instant case presents no evidence of retaliation, intentional disparate treatment or any
other kind of callous, intentional or malicious conduct that would make punitive damages
appropriate.
Applying the relevant factors, we will uphold the District Court’s decision to
vacate the punitive damages award. The Borough’s conduct was not so flagrant as to
warrant punitive damages, particularly because there was a legitimate concern for the
10
safety of Dunmore citizens. See BMW, 517 U.S. at 575-576. Dee suffered no economic
harm, as he was suspended with pay and lost no job benefits once he was reinstated.
Furthermore, as stated earlier, there is no evidence of callous, intentional or malicious
conduct. Id.;
Campbell, 538 U.S. at 416 (ruling that due process prohibits grossly
excessive or arbitrary punitive damage awards).
It follows that we will affirm the District Court’s decision to vacate the punitive
damage award of $6,000.
III.
In its cross-appeal, the Borough argues that the District Court should have granted
its motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to Dee’s due process claim.
Specifically, the Borough contends that the District Court erred in tasking the jury with
the application of the due process balancing test announced by the Supreme Court in
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1975). The Borough contends that the District
Court should have applied that test as a matter of law, rather than referring it to the jury.
We conclude, however, that we need not reach this issue because the Borough failed to
properly preserve any error committed by the District Court.
The Borough never objected prior to or during trial that the District Court should
not have referred the Mathews test to the jury. Rather, the only argument that it made
with respect to the Mathews test was that the evidence was insufficient to support a
11
verdict in favor of Dee. 3 Moreover, as its counsel admitted, the Borough failed to object
to the District Court’s jury instructions on this issue. As such, the Borough failed to
preserve the issue of whether the District Court, rather than the jury, should have applied
the Mathews factors.
The Borough’s failure to preserve this issue for appeal is not affected by the fact
that, in a different case arising out of similar facts, the District Court recognized its own
error. See Memorandum, Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 3:05-CV-1343 (M.D. Pa.
Sept. 21, 2011), ECF No. 182 at 4 (“The balancing of the Mathews factors by the jury and
not the court was error. . . .”). Although this court has discretionary power to address
waived issues in exceptional circumstances, this is not such a case. See Webb v. City of
Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 263 (3d Cir. 2009) (recognizing discretion to hear waived
arguments where the issue’s resolution is of public importance, where there is a risk of a
miscarriage of justice, or where the issue is a purely legal one). Moreover, the interests of
justice are not served by permitting the Borough to raise novel arguments in this appeal.
Any prejudice resulting to the Borough from the District Court’s mistake is attributable to
the Borough’s failure to raise the argument and advise the District Court of relevant case
law. We cannot permit parties who lose jury verdicts to raise on appeal novel legal
3
To the extent the Borough intends to challenge on appeal the District Court’s
rejection of its argument based on insufficiency of evidence before the jury rendered its
verdict, we will affirm. As noted by the District Court, there was conflicting evidence on
the Borough’s motivation in suspending Dee. Cf. Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d
225, 233 (3d Cir. 2008 ) (recognizing a disputed issue of material fact as to the Borough’s
12
arguments that they could have made, but failed to make, before the trial court. See
United States v. Nee, 261 F.3d 79, 86 (1st Cir. 2001) (“Th[e] ‘raise-or-waive rule’
prevents sandbagging; for instance, it precludes a party from making a tactical decision to
refrain from objecting, and subsequently . . . assigning error . . . .”) (cited in Tri-M Group,
LLC v. Sharp,
638 F.3d 406, 434 (3d Cir. 2011)).
Thus, the Borough waived its current argument that the District Court should not
have referred the Mathews test to the jury, and we decline to exercise our discretion to
consider that argument.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
motivation in suspending Dee).
13
