Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13563
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00031-RH-CAS
VALERIE DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 18, 2015)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (“FAHCA”) appeals
from the district court’s denial of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of
law, motion for new trial, and motion for remittitur, in a suit raised by Valerie
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 2 of 9
Davis, an African-American, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title
VII”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). On appeal, it argues that: (1) the
district court erred by denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law because
Davis failed to present evidence that she suffered a materially adverse action or
evidence that her discrimination grievance was the but-for cause of any adverse
action taken against her; (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying its
motion for a new trial because Davis presented a retaliatory hostile work
environment theory during closing arguments but did not request a jury instruction
for that claim; and (3) the court clearly abused its discretion by denying its motion
for a new trial or remittitur because the jury’s award of compensatory damages for
Davis’s mental and emotional anguish was not supported by the evidence. After
thorough review, we affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo.
Howard v. Walgreen Co., 605 F.3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2010). We consider the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. We do not make
credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Hubbard v. BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., 688 F.3d 713, 724 (11th Cir. 2012). We consider evidence
supporting the nonmovant’s case, as well as uncontradicted and unimpeached
evidence supporting the movant that comes from disinterested witnesses. Id. We
apply decisions construing Title VII when considering a claim under the FCRA,
2
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 3 of 9
and thus, do not address Davis’s FCRA retaliation claim separately. Harper v.
Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir. 1998).
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.
Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1196 (11th Cir. 2004).
We review a jury instruction deferentially, and will only grant a new trial for an
erroneous instruction if the instructions did not accurately reflect the law and we
are “left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was
properly guided.” Id. (quotation omitted). However, an appellant waives its right
to challenge an improper jury instruction on appeal if it did not timely object to the
instruction before the district court, unless the error affected its substantial rights.
Badger v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 1334, 1342 (11th Cir. 2010).
We review an allegedly improper statement during closing argument for
plain error when the appellant makes no objection to the argument before the
district court. Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd., 297 F.3d 1172, 1179 (11th Cir.
2002). To show plain error, the defendant must show (1) an error, (2) that is plain,
and (3) that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265,
1276 (11th Cir. 2007). If the defendant satisfies the three conditions, we may
exercise our discretion to recognize the error if it “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. “A finding of plain
error is seldom justified in reviewing argument of counsel in a civil case.” Brough,
3
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 4 of 9
297 F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted). Finally, we review a district court’s decision
to sustain a jury’s award of compensatory damages for clear abuse of discretion.
Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1359 (11th Cir. 2003). We defer to the fact
finder’s award of damages for intangible, emotional harm because the evaluation
of these harms depends heavily on the consideration of witnesses’ demeanors. Id.
A damage award is presumptively valid if a district court has reviewed and upheld
the award. Ferrill v. Parker Group, Inc., 168 F.3d 468, 476 (11th Cir. 1999).
First, we are unpersuaded by FAHCA’s claim that the district court erred by
denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law concerning Davis’s
discrimination claim. A judgment as a matter of law is granted to a defendant
when the plaintiff fails to present a sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
jury to find in her favor on a material element of her claim. Howard, 605 F.3d at
1242. When a substantial conflict in the evidence exists, and reasonable people
may reach different conclusions, the motion for judgment as a matter of law must
be denied. Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299, 1311 (11th Cir. 2012).
To raise a successful retaliation claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show
that: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered a materially
adverse action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity
and the adverse action. Howard, 605 F.3d at 1244. After the plaintiff establishes
these elements, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for
4
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 5 of 9
the challenged action. Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1277
(11th Cir. 2008). If the defendant provides a nonretaliatory reason, then the
plaintiff must show that the defendant’s reason is a pretext for retaliation. Id.
In retaliation cases, a materially adverse action is any action that may
dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge.
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). In
Burlington, the Supreme Court noted that the significance of a retaliatory act
depends on the context of the act, and a specific action may be materially adverse
in some situations but immaterial in others. Id. at 69. We’ve said that “Burlington
also strongly suggests that it is for a jury to decide whether anything more than the
most petty and trivial actions against an employee should be considered materially
adverse to him.” Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 973 n.13 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quotation omitted). We’ve held that an employee suffers a materially adverse
action when she receives an unfavorable performance review that affects her
eligibility for a pay raise. Id. at 974. We’ve also noted that a set of actions may
constitute an adverse employment action when considered collectively, even if
some actions do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action individually.
Shannon v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 716 (11th Cir. 2002).
To show a causal connection, the plaintiff must show that the decisionmaker
was aware of her protected conduct, and that the protected activity and adverse
5
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 6 of 9
action were not wholly unrelated. Kidd v. Mando Am. Corp., 731 F.3d 1196, 1211
(11th Cir. 2013). In the absence of other evidence demonstrating causation, a
three-month interval between the protected activity and the adverse action is too
long to show causation through temporal proximity. Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of
Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1182 (11th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation
case must also show that retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of the challenged
adverse action. Booth v. Pasco Cnty., 757 F.3d 1198, 1207 (11th Cir. 2014). We
have noted that a jury may infer that a defendant’s action was retaliatory if it is
permitted to disbelieve the defendant’s explanation for the action. Id.
In this case, Davis presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
conclude that she suffered retaliation. As the record reveals, Davis demonstrated
first that she had engaged in statutorily protected activity with evidence of the
grievance she filed with FAHCA’s human resources department. Second, she
showed that she had suffered a materially adverse action with evidence of the
unsatisfactory performance evaluation Suzanne Hurley gave her that constituted
the first step to Davis being fired from FAHCA. As for establishing a causal
connection, she demonstrated that the evaluation was not wholly unrelated to her
grievance because Hurley raised complaints about Davis’s poor grammar,
insubordination, and lack of communication in the evaluation that only began after
she learned about Davis’s grievance. She also presented enough evidence for a
6
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 7 of 9
jury to reasonably conclude that her grievance was the but-for cause of the
retaliatory action, since Davis testified that Hurley got along well with her until she
was interviewed about the discrimination grievance. Furthermore, the jury could
have reasonably inferred retaliatory animus because Davis presented sufficient
evidence for the jury to disbelieve FAHCA’s explanations for Hurley’s actions
towards Davis. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying FAHCA’s
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law for Davis’s retaliation claim.
We are also unconvinced by FAHCA’s argument that the district court
abused its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial concerning Davis’s
retaliatory hostile work environment claim. For starters, FAHCA waived its right
to challenge the omission of a retaliatory hostile work environment instruction
because it did not object to the court’s exclusion of that instruction. Badger, 612
F.3d at 1342. Moreover, since Davis did not prevail on a retaliatory hostile work
environment claim at trial, FAHCA has not shown that the exclusion of this theory
of liability from the jury instructions affected its substantial rights. Nor did the
court commit any error, plain or otherwise, by permitting Davis to state during her
closing argument that a hostile environment was part of the retaliatory conduct. As
the record shows, Davis did not argue a retaliatory hostile work environment
theory during her closing argument; instead, she said only that this environment
was part of the materially adverse action taken against her by FAHCA for purposes
7
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 8 of 9
of her retaliation claim. She accurately informed the jury that they had to find a
materially adverse action taken against her because of her grievance in order to
conclude that she suffered from retaliation, and explained that a set of actions may
constitute a materially adverse action when considered in the aggregate, even if
individual actions do not rise to a materially adverse action. Shannon, 292 F.3d at
716. As for FAHCA’s argument that it should have been granted judgment as a
matter of law because Davis improperly argued for a retaliatory hostile work
environment, it is meritless. As we’ve already held, the district court correctly
concluded that the jury had sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that
FAHCA was liable for retaliation. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying FAHCA’s motion for a new trial.
Finally, we reject FAHCA’s claim that the court clearly abused its discretion
by denying its motion for a new trial or remittitur because the jury’s award of
compensatory damages for Davis’s mental and emotional anguish was not
supported by the evidence. General compensatory damages do not have to be
proven with a high degree of specificity, and they may be inferred from the
circumstances or proven through testimony. Akouri v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 408
F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff’s own testimony may support an
award of compensatory damages for emotional distress, but the testimony must
consist of more than conclusory statements that the plaintiff suffered from
8
Case: 14-13563 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 9 of 9
emotional distress. Id. Thus, we’ve previously affirmed a denial of remittitur for a
damages award of $300,000 based on the plaintiff’s mental anguish when the
plaintiff testified that he became physically ill due to the discrimination against
him, he lost 40 pounds in five months, he lost self-esteem, he felt degraded when
having to train someone for the position he wanted, and he heard jokes about the
denial of his promotion. Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 664 F.3d 883, 899-900 (11th
Cir. 2011). In Ash, the plaintiff’s wife also testified that the plaintiff withdrew
from relationships with his family following the denied promotion, his
relationships deteriorated, and he lost a lot of weight. Id. at 900.
At trial, Davis presented sufficient evidence of mental and emotional
anguish to support the jury’s award of compensatory damages. As in Ash, Davis
testified that she suffered from weight fluctuations and stopped going to events
with friends due to the stress caused by Hurley’s actions. She was embarrassed
when Hurley wore a mask after she left Hurley’s office due to Hurley’s claim that
she wore a noxious perfume, and this lowered her self-esteem. She added that she
lost friends at work and that co-workers were afraid to talk to her. Since Davis
presented detailed evidence of her emotional harm, and since the jury’s award is
presumptively valid, the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by
denying FAHCA’s motion concerning the jury’s award of compensatory damages.
AFFIRMED.
9