Recently, the Second Circuit issued a decision on a case brought by Fortesa Qorrolli against her former employer, Metropolitan Dental Associates, for sex discrimination and sexual harassment. What made this ruling particularly unique was that it was tried on two separate occasions, with wildly different jury verdicts (over $2 million in the first trial, $1.00 in the second trial). Therefore, the appellate court had to decide, among other things, whether the trial court properly ruled that the case had to be retried due to evidentiary issues, and whether the second trial’s verdict was in line with the weight of the evidence.
The First Trial
The Second Circuit noted that during the first trial, Fortesa testified to the following conduct by her boss, Mario Orantes:
[S]he was sexually harassed by Orantes almost daily, who, among other things, allegedly “told [Qorrolli] that [she] had a nice, firm body,” would “hug” Qorrolli, “kiss” her on the cheek, and tell her he “loved” her, and “lingered around [Qorrolli’s] lips for [her] to look up and have him kiss [her],” Qorrolli testified that Orantes’ conduct made her “start[] feeling anxiety and [having] panic attacks.” Qorrolli also testified that she observed Orantes sexually abusing her female coworkers and giving preferential treatment to the women who accepted his advances. Qorrolli asserted that Orantes would blame her for these other women’s mistakes and would unfairly target Qorrolli for punishment and chastisement because of her refusal to submit to his advances.(Citations omitted throughout).
Motion for a New Trial
However, the District Court found that the verdict for emotional distress of $575,000 far outweighed the nature of the discriminatory impact (which, for Fortesa, was somewhere in between “garden variety” emotional distress claims and those with significant mental health treatment, since her proof did not contain any admissible evidence of serious psychological harm). Furthermore, the trial court held that the $2 million in punitive damages was “dozens of times larger than a reasonable compensatory damages award.” Finally, the Court was troubled that the jury assessed punitive damages against MDA as opposed to Orantes, despite the fact that even though “[t]he only negligent or reckless conduct attributable to [MDA]—as opposed to Dr. Cohen or Orantes—consists of [MDA’s] failure to maintain a sexual harassment
policy.”
The District Court therefore granted the employer’s motion for a new trial.
The Second Trial
Before the start of the second trial, the Court precluded Fortesa from introducing her psychiatric records, the deposition testimony of a fact witness (who gave “ever-changing” reasons for her unavailability at trial), and an anonymous fax message containing allegations of Orantes’s sexual harassment toward other employees. This time, after hearing Fortesa’s testimony and other evidence at trial, the second jury panel again found for her on the issue of liability, but awarded only $1.00 in nominal compensatory damages.
The Second Circuit upheld the second verdict, and also ruled that the District Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for a new trial.
Key Takeaways
This case, to me, is indicative of the substantial risks for parties to go to trial, having the case go through the appeals process, then re-trying the case. This is especially true in the realm of employment law, which contains fee-shifting provisions where a successful verdict in favor of the plaintiff renders the employer liable for all of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. So, while it’s a huge win for MDA, the amount of money spent defending this case in addition to the money owed to Fortesa in attorneys’ fees, makes me feel like this is a Pyrrhic victory, at best.
If you have questions regarding employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, or wrongful termination, please give Erdal Employment Law, LLC a call, or fill out the Intake Form on our website!