Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2006 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJudgment as a matter of lawTitle VIIDamagesAttorney's feesRule 50hostile work environmentsevere or pervasive harassment

Facts

Arbaugh sued after working as a bartender and waitress at the Moonlight Café, alleging sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment and constructive discharge under Title VII and Louisiana law. A jury found for Arbaugh and awarded $5,000 in back pay, $5,000 for pain and suffering, and $30,000 in punitive damages. The evidence included testimony that Hatipoglu deliberately and unwantedly touched Arbaugh's intimate body parts, and Arbaugh also testified to sleep, eating, work, and social difficulties resulting from defendants' conduct. Arbaugh's complaint and the jury charge treated Y & H Corporation as the defendant on the discrimination claim and Hatipoglu as the defendant only on a separate state-law battery claim, on which the jury found no liability.

Issue

Whether, under Rule 50(a), the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's findings on hostile work environment, back pay, emotional-distress damages, and punitive damages. The court also had to decide whether judgment could stand against Hatipoglu individually, whether prejudgment and postjudgment interest should be added, and whether Arbaugh was entitled to attorney's fees.

Rule

On a Rule 50(a) motion, the court reviews the whole record, draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. Deliberate and unwanted touching of intimate body parts can be sufficiently severe sexual harassment to support a hostile-work-environment claim; punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a require that the employer act with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights, meaning knowledge of or perceived risk that its conduct may violate federal law. Under Title VII, liability runs to employers, not individual employees, and prejudgment interest is appropriate on back pay but not on emotional-distress or punitive-damages awards; postjudgment interest is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a hotel server sued her employer under Title VII for sexual harassment. After a plaintiff's verdict, the employer moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the server's testimony was inconsistent and the jury should have believed the manager and two coworkers instead.

How should the court evaluate the motion?

Explanation. Under Rule 50(a) as applied in the opinion, the court reviews the whole record but must draw all reasonable inferences for the nonmovant and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. A judge cannot overturn a verdict merely because the employer's witnesses seemed more persuasive.