May v. Chrysler Group, LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26916, 716 F.3d 963, 2013 WL 1955682 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's response to severe and persistent coworker harassment may be insufficient to avoid liability for a hostile work environment, but punitive damages are not warranted if the employer made substantial, good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII, as such efforts negate a finding of malice or reckless indifference to the employee's rights.
Facts:
- Otto May, Jr., a pipefitter of Cuban descent who identifies as a Messianic Jew, worked at a Chrysler assembly plant.
- From 2002 to 2005, May was subjected to over fifty instances of racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic graffiti and multiple death-threat notes left in his toolbox.
- The messages included phrases such as 'Otto Cuban good Jew is a dead Jew,' 'death to the Cuban Jew,' and 'kill Jew Heil Hitler' accompanied by swastikas.
- May's personal property was also repeatedly vandalized; sugar was poured in the gas tanks of two of his cars, his tires were punctured, and a dead bird dressed to resemble a Ku Klux Klansman was left at his workstation.
- May repeatedly reported the harassment to Chrysler management and suggested specific remedial actions, such as installing surveillance cameras.
- May also provided Chrysler's corporate investigator with a list of 19 employees he suspected of being involved in the harassment.
- Chrysler did not interview any of the employees on May's list of suspects, nor did it install surveillance cameras in the areas where the harassment was occurring.
- In response to May's complaints, Chrysler held meetings about its harassment policy, moved May's parking spot, documented incidents, analyzed employee gate-access records, and hired a forensic handwriting analyst.
Procedural Posture:
- Otto May, Jr. sued Chrysler in the United States District Court, alleging a hostile work environment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The hostile work environment claim proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict for May, awarding him $709,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages.
- In response to Chrysler's post-verdict motions, the district court upheld the liability verdict but ordered a remittitur of compensatory damages to $300,000, which May accepted.
- The district court granted Chrysler's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to punitive damages, vacating that portion of the jury's award.
- Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Chrysler appealed the finding of liability and May, the plaintiff-appellant on this issue, appealed the vacatur of the punitive damages award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer act with the malice or reckless indifference required for an award of punitive damages under Title VII when its extensive, multi-faceted response to severe coworker harassment is ultimately ineffective and insufficient to avoid liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. An employer does not act with malice or reckless indifference warranting punitive damages when its response to harassment, though insufficient to avoid liability, demonstrates a good-faith effort to comply with the law rather than a conscious disregard for the employee's rights. The court first affirmed the jury's verdict on liability, finding ample evidence that Chrysler's response was not 'prompt and adequate' given the gravity of the death threats. The jury could rationally conclude that merely documenting incidents and failing to interview known suspects or install a single camera aimed at May's toolbox was an insufficient response to 'repeated vicious death threats.' However, the court reversed the punitive damages award. To recover punitive damages under Title VII, a plaintiff must show the employer acted 'in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.' Here, Chrysler’s actions—holding meetings, implementing documentation protocols, engaging corporate investigators, using a handwriting expert, increasing management walk-throughs, and conducting diversity training—while ultimately unsuccessful, were substantial enough to negate a finding of reckless indifference. These efforts, though imperfect, showed Chrysler was trying to address the harassment and comply with its Title VII obligations, distinguishing its conduct from the 'conscious wrongdoing' required for punitive damages.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between the negligence standard for establishing employer liability for a hostile work environment and the higher 'reckless indifference' standard for awarding punitive damages. The ruling establishes that an employer can be found liable for an inadequate response to harassment while simultaneously being shielded from punitive damages if it can demonstrate substantial, good-faith efforts to remedy the situation. This creates a partial safe harbor for employers who take concrete, albeit ultimately ineffective, steps to combat harassment, incentivizing documented remedial efforts. It reinforces that punitive damages are reserved for cases involving a 'positive element of conscious wrongdoing,' not merely for failed or negligent responses.
