Cynthia Keehr and Bruce Keehr v. Consolidated Freightways of Delaware, Inc.

Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed jury verdicts arising from a supervisor's allegedly defamatory and highly offensive remark about an employee's wife during a workplace altercation. The court held that the employee's Indiana tort claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not preempted by the NLRA or LMRA § 301, upheld the verdicts despite alleged inconsistency, and sustained compensatory and punitive damages.

Holdings

1. The claim was not preempted under Garmon because it was based on the particularly abusive manner in which alleged workplace harassment was carried out, rather than on the underlying employment discrimination or labor dispute itself, and the jury could find the conduct outrageous.
2. Bruce's invasion-of-privacy claim was not preempted under sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA.
3. Bruce's tort claims were not preempted by section 301 of the LMRA because their resolution did not depend on interpreting the collective-bargaining agreement.
4. The verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent, and the district court properly denied the post-trial motion.
5. The $20,000 invasion-of-privacy award was supported by the evidence and was not so grossly excessive as to require reversal.
6. Consolidated Freightways waived its arguments that an oral comment could not support an invasion-of-privacy claim and that Indiana law did not recognize a derivative privacy claim.
7. Bruce's recovery of only nominal damages did not, by itself, preclude the $50,000 punitive-damages award under Indiana law.
8. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct was wilful or malicious rather than the result of an innocent error or ordinary human failing.
9. The $50,000 punitive-damages award was not excessive despite Bruce's $2.00 nominal-damages award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bruce Keehr's state-law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act under Garmon or by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
2. Whether an invasion-of-privacy claim based on the supervisor's remark was preempted by federal labor law.
3. Whether the verdicts for Cynthia on invasion of privacy and against her on defamation were impermissibly inconsistent.
4. Whether Cynthia's $20,000 compensatory-damages award for invasion of privacy was unsupported or excessive.
5. Whether Consolidated Freightways waived arguments that Indiana law did not recognize invasion of privacy based solely on an oral comment or a derivative invasion-of-privacy claim by Bruce.
6. Whether Bruce's nominal damages awards precluded punitive damages under Indiana law.
7. Whether the evidence sufficiently established malicious or intentional conduct to support punitive damages.
8. Whether Bruce's $50,000 punitive-damages award was excessive in relation to his nominal damages.

Disposition

affirmed