RICHARD P. MATSCH, Senior District Judge.
In the Order and Judgment entered in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 30, 2014, that Court ruled that this Court erred when it entered judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) on "on the Title VII hostile work environment claim" of the plaintiff, citing record evidence and concluding as follows:
Accordingly the appellate court ordered that "the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment."
The parties and this Court assumed that this order required a new trial limited to the issue of an abusive hostile work environment before termination.
A pre-trial conference was held on September 29, 2014. There were disagreements conceding the scope of a trial so limited. There was discussion of the effects of the jury verdict and what a new jury should be told about the MSPB ruling, the conduct of the trial and the jury verdict.
Counsel for the plaintiff limited her claim for damages to the date of termination, November, 2007, explaining that Ms. Ridgell-Boltz had another administrative claim pending based on the treatment she received after she returned to work as a result of the MSPB decision. The question of the viability of a trial on the plaintiff's discrete claim of the effects of working in an environment hostile to women was discussed without any resolution. The plaintiff indicated an intention to call additional witnesses and introduce new exhibits as well as withdrawing from a stipulation read to the jury at the trial.
The defendant's position was that the plaintiff must be limited to the same evidence received at the trial and cited by the Circuit Court. There was disagreement about what damages could be recovered in addition to the jury verdict.
These disagreements caused this Court to review the evidence at the trial and the significance of the jury verdict. The non-economic damages claim was based on the testimony of Dr. Rachel Sutton, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, who saw Ms. Ridgell-Boltz in February, 2007, for complaints of stress. Dr. Sutton treated the plaintiff for three months, beginning in August, 2007, consisting of seven sessions of counseling. Dr. Sutton treated Ms. Ridgell-Boltz again in 2009 for a few months for claims of distress the plaintiff claimed to have been caused by the working conditions she experienced after returning to work as an attorney for the SSA.
During that treatment in 2009, Dr. Sutton diagnosed PTSD based on the plaintiff's subjective complaints of re-experiencing the anxieties that troubled her in 2007. The defendant's counsel objected to that testimony as beyond the scope of the claim of retaliatory discharge but the objection was overruled on the ground that it could be considered in determining an award of continuing damages. Dr. Sutton's diagnosis in 2007 was that Ms. Ridgell-Boltz had an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression.
In closing argument, plaintiff's counsel urged the jury to award "out-of-pocket" damages over $90,000.00 and then said the following:
The jury awarded $14,000.00 for out-of-pocket expenses and $5,000.00 for "emotional distress, pain suffering, embarrassment, humiliation or damages to reputation."
It appears that the plaintiff has been compensated for the emotional injury she sustained and that it is not feasible to attempt to recover additional damages at a second trial. Accordingly, the trial date was vacated and the Court proceeded with the plaintiff's claim for attorney fees and costs.
Upon the foregoing, it is
ORDERED, that the claim for damages based on a hostile work environment is dismissed.