Summary
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a new trial, remittitur, and reduction of punitive damages in Kenny Faulk’s racial-discrimination action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court held that defense objections to opposing counsel’s misconduct and the district court’s evidentiary rulings did not warrant a new trial, that the compensatory damages were supported by the evidence, and that the $3 million punitive-damages award was not unconstitutionally excessive. The court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether misconduct by Faulk's counsel required a new trial.
- Whether the district court's exclusion of records concerning Faulk's 2019 arrest and 2014 arrest or charge required a new trial.
- Whether the cumulative effect of the alleged misconduct and evidentiary rulings required a new trial.
- Whether the compensatory damages award was excessive and required remittitur.
- Whether the $3 million punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive under the Due Process Clause.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees.
Holdings
- Counsel's improper opening and closing arguments, improper cross-examination, and other trial tactics did not require a new trial because the district court promptly corrected or addressed the conduct and Dimerco failed to show impairment of a substantial right or substantial prejudice.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 2019 arrest record under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and any error in excluding the 2014 arrest record was harmless.
- The alleged errors, considered cumulatively, did not deprive Dimerco of a fundamentally fair trial and therefore did not require a new trial.
- The $390,000 compensatory damages award was supported by the evidence and was not excessive, so the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying remittitur.
- The $3 million punitive damages award, representing a 7.69-to-1 ratio to compensatory damages, was not unconstitutionally excessive.
- Because the underlying judgment was affirmed, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Faulk attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
Key quotations
“Because the district court cured the lawyer’s misconduct and did not reversibly err in its evidentiary rulings, we affirm its denial of a new trial.” (at 2)
“And because the punitive damages are not unconstitutionally excessive for Dimerco’s reprehensible conduct, we affirm the denial of the motion to reduce them.” (at 2)
“A lawyer’s misconduct warrants a new trial only when it “impair[s] a substantial right of the objecting party.”” (at 17)
“The Due Process Clause places substantive limits on the availability of punitive damages awards.” (at 32)
“We AFFIRM the judgment in favor of Faulk.” (at 41)
Factual background
Dimerco conditionally hired Kenny Faulk, a Black man, for an Atlanta sales position, subject to a background check. After a background report identified a misdemeanor conviction and included Faulk's race, Dimerco's president directed human resources to rescind the offer. Trial evidence showed that Dimerco leadership had adopted preferences for hiring white or Caucasian sales employees, had rejected non-white applicants, and later hired a white applicant with multiple misdemeanor convictions. The jury found that Dimerco refused to hire Faulk because of his race and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
Procedural history
Faulk sued Dimerco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after Dimerco rescinded a conditional employment offer. A jury awarded Faulk $390,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The district court denied Dimerco's post-trial motions and awarded Faulk attorney's fees and costs. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.