Summary
The Eleventh Circuit considered an appeal concerning damages awarded for sex discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. It held that, because the jury did not apportion damages between the federal and state claims, the award could reach the combined statutory maximums, totaling $481,028, and that Title VII’s employee-headcount cap was an affirmative defense waived by the dealership’s failure to plead it. The court also held that the district court properly corrected its prior judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court's administrative termination of post-judgment motions disposed of those motions and caused the initial judgment to become final for purposes of the thirty-day appeal period.
- Whether the district court could correct its legal mistake imposing individual liability on Rios under Rule 60(b) after the initial judgment's appeal period had allegedly expired.
- How damages should be allocated and capped when a jury finds liability under both Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act but does not allocate its damages award between the two statutes.
- Whether Title VII's employee-headcount damages cap is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and preserved, and whether the dealership waived that cap by failing to plead or otherwise submit it as an issue for trial.
Holdings
- Administrative termination did not dispose of the defendants' post-judgment motions because the district court expressly contemplated reinstating them after mediation and therefore did not finally or definitively resolve them.
- The district court could correct its legal mistake under Rule 60(b)(1), including on its own initiative and after the close of the original appeal period, and the amended judgment began a new thirty-day appeal period.
- When an unallocated verdict establishes liability under both Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act, the plaintiff's damages are limited by the combined effect of the applicable federal and state statutory maximums, and damages may be allocated between the statutes to maximize the lawful recovery.
- Title VII's employee-headcount cap is a waivable affirmative defense because its application depends on facts outside the elements of a Title VII claim and may unfairly surprise the plaintiff if raised after discovery or trial.
Key quotations
“Khatabi is entitled to a maximum award of $481,028 for her sex-discrimination claims against the dealership—the combined maximum available through both Title VII and the Act after the jury’s verdict.” (15)
“Because the dealership waived the benefit of Title VII’s $50,000 damages cap, it was error for the district court to apply that cap to reduce Khatabi’s sex-discrimination damages to $181,028.” (20)
“REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.” (20)
Factual background
Khatabi worked for approximately four months at a Miami Fiat dealership under Carlos Rios's supervision. Rios and other managers allegedly subjected her to repeated sex-based verbal and physical harassment, including degrading comments, pressure to use her appearance to sell cars, unwanted touching, kissing, and suggestions that she distribute business cards in a bikini. Khatabi quit because she could not withstand the harassment and sued under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The jury found for Khatabi and awarded $80,000 for emotional pain and mental anguish, $1,028 for lost employment benefits, and $750,000 in punitive damages.
Procedural history
Khatabi sued Car Auto Holdings and Carlos Rios for sex discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. A jury awarded $81,028 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages, and the district court initially entered judgment against the dealership and Rios. The district court later vacated the judgment as to Rios under Rule 60(b), entered an amended judgment, and then reduced Khatabi's damages to $181,028 by applying Title VII's employee-headcount cap and awarding damages under only the Florida Civil Rights Act. Khatabi appealed.
Remand instructions
Reverse the second amended judgment and direct the district court to enter judgment for Khatabi against the dealership in the amount of $481,028 on the sex-discrimination claims, consisting of $81,028 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages. The second amended judgment should remain unchanged in all other respects.