Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Davey sued her former employer for gender discrimination and retaliating against her for complaining about the discrimination in federal district court. She obtained a jury verdict that included a punitive damage award. The employer appealed the verdict on the retaliation claim, contending that the district court improperly denied it the opportunity to present a material aspect of its case to the jury, which led to the award of punitive damages.
On a challenge to a district court’s decision to deny a motion to amend a pretrial order, and resulting exclusion of an issue, the court considers:
Davey sued her former employer, asserting claims for gender discrimination and retaliation against her for complaining about the discrimination. She obtained a jury verdict on one of her retaliation claims and was awarded, in accordance with the jury’s verdict, compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and front pay, attorney’s fees, and interest. The employer appealed the verdict on the retaliation claim, contending that the district court improperly denied it the opportunity to amend the pretrial order to allow it to present a defense — good faith compliance with Title VII — to the jury, which led to the award of punitive damages.
Did the district court err in denying the employer’s request to amend the pretrial order to allow it an opportunity to present a defense (good faith compliance with Title VII) to the jury?
Yes. The district court abused its discretion in denying the employer’s request to amend the pretrial order to allow it the opportunity to present a defense (good faith compliance with Title VII) to the jury.
In this case, except for the timeliness of the employer’s motion, all of the factors considered in deciding a challenge to a court’s decision on a motion to amend a pretrial order (prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, timeliness of the request for amendment; ability to cure any prejudice; disruption; bad faith of the party seeking the amendment), weighed in favor of allowing amendment to the pretrial order.