Trivedi v. Cooper

Citation. 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18715 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

Brief Fact Summary.

Trivedi sued Cooper for employment discrimination, asserting claims for hostile work environment, failure to promote, and retaliation. Cooper moved for a directed verdict on the failure to promote and retaliation claims at the close of the plaintiff’s case at trial. The jury returned a verdict for Trivedi. Cooper moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) on all three claims; alternatively, he moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) or a remittitur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

1. A defendant who has moved for a directed verdict at the end of a plaintiff’s case has preserved the right to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) after the judgment is entered;
2. The court may grant a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) after a jury verdict that was against the weight of the evidence or seriously erroneous;
3. If a verdict is excessive, the court should remit the amount of the jury’s award to the highest amount that would not be excessive.
4. If a court grants remittitur or, alternatively, a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the court must determine if a new trial on some or all of the issues should be granted.

Facts.

Trivedi, who worked as  a research scientist, sued Cooper, his supervisor at the New York State Office of Mental Health, for employment discrimination. Specifically, Trivedi asserted three claims: hostile work environment, failure to promote, and retaliation. At the close of the plaintiff’s case at trial, Cooper moved for a directed verdict on the failure to promote and retaliation claims. The jury returned a verdict for Trivedi, awarding him $700,000 in compensatory damages, plus back pay on the failure to promote claim, plus nominal damages on the retaliation claim. Cooper moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) on all three claims, or, alternatively, for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) or a remittitur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

Issue.

Was Trivedi entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) on all claims, a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), or a remittitur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)?

Held.

Trivedi was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) on any of the claims, or a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). However, the court ordered a remittitur, or, alternatively, if the remittitur was not accepted by the plaintiff, a new trial on liability and damages on the hostile work environment claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

Discussion.

1. Cooper waived his right to judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) on the hostile work environment claim by not preserving the right and moving for a directed verdict; on the retaliation and failure to promote claims, for which the right to judgment as a matter of law had been preserved, judgment as a matter of law was not appropriate because the verdict was not unreasonable or the result of surmise or conjecture;
2. Cooper was not entitled to a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) on all three claims. The verdicts on the failure to promote and retaliation claims were not against the weight of the evidence. The verdict on the hostile work environment was a closer question, but a new trial would be inappropriate because the jury’s decision depended on its assessment of the credibility of two parties.
3. The jury’s verdict was excessive. Remittitur of the verdict was ordered or, alternatively, a new trial on damages and liability on the hostile work environment claim was ordered if the plaintiff did not accept the remittitur.