Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Everdry Marketing & Management, Inc.
Citation: 348 F. App'x 677Docket: Nos. 06-5430-cv (L), 08-4308-cv (xap)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 14, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Defendants-appellants Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc. (EMM) and Everdry Management Services, Inc. (EMS) appeal the District Court's denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law after a jury verdict favoring the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which represented multiple EMS employees subjected to workplace sexual harassment. The District Court's final judgment for the plaintiff was issued on November 7, 2006. Both parties subsequently sought to amend the judgment, which resulted in a reduction of the compensatory damage award and the inclusion of prejudgment interest, while the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was denied. The defendants appeal the final judgment, arguing that the District Court erred in four main areas: (1) insufficient evidence for finding EMM and EMS as an integrated enterprise, (2) failure to remit damages reflecting a temporary integration, (3) not instructing the jury on punitive damages, and (4) declining to reduce the punitive damages against EMM, which they claim is excessively high. The plaintiff counters the defendants' appeals while also asserting that the denial of injunctive relief was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court reviews the denial of judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 de novo, emphasizing that such a judgment should only be granted in the absence of evidence supporting the verdict. The court, upon reviewing the evidence, upholds the jury's finding of EMM and EMS as an integrated enterprise, concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict and that it does not stem from mere conjecture. The appellate review standard for damages awards—both compensatory and punitive—evaluates whether the amount is so excessive that it shocks the judicial conscience and denies justice. Courts must defer to the jury's factual determinations, and the appellate review favors the appellee's perspective. Defendants cannot challenge punitive damages on appeal unless the jury's verdict lacks legal support. The appellate court found that the punitive damages had legal backing and that the jury instructions were appropriate. In assessing the denial of injunctive relief, the appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion, emphasizing that such discretion must be based on sound legal principles. The moving party must demonstrate a credible danger of repeated violations, beyond mere possibility. The District Court determined that injunctive relief was unwarranted because the entity in question, EMS, was no longer operational, and any alleged harassment did not occur at EMM. Consequently, the relationship between EMM and EMS did not constitute a credible danger of recurrent violation. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the District Court's judgment and awarded costs to the EEOC, finding no merit in the plaintiff's other arguments.