In Lloyd v. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, No. 2:19-cv-02775-JDW, 2023 WL 2940229 (E.D. Pa. April 13, 2023), the court, inter alia, upheld a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor on her “retaliatory hostile work environment” claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
It was reasonable for the jury to find for Ms. Lloyd on her retaliatory hostile work environment claim. At trial, the jury heard testimony from which it could conclude that management didn’t investigate Ms. Lloyd’s complaints but investigated her instead. It also heard testimony that management revealed her complaint to coworkers. There was testimony that once Ms. Lloyd’s coworkers were aware of her complaints, those coworkers began to bully her and refused to help her at work. The daily bullying was so persistent that Ms. Lloyd cried before work every day and often couldn’t leave her bed. The jury was free to credit that testimony. And if it did so, it could reasonably conclude that the conduct occurred because of Ms. Lloyd’s complaint, it was pervasive, it affected Ms. Lloyd, and it would have affected a reasonable person.
CHOP argues that because there was evidence that Ms. Lloyd’s conduct (such as her own notetaking) caused the hostile work environment, she didn’t prove that “retaliatory animus” caused it. But that flips the standard on its head. The jury didn’t have to believe the testimony that Ms. Lloyd’s own actions created the hostile work environment. It could believe that management’s exposure of her complaints to her coworkers was the only thing that caused the bullying, even if Ms. Lloyd wasn’t sure of that herself. There was also sufficient evidence based on the lack of documentation surrounding how CHOP handled Ms. Lloyd’s complaints for the jury to question whether CHOP took those complaints seriously. The lack of documentation, coupled with CHOP’s contemporaneous investigation into Ms. Lloyd’s note taking, was sufficient for the jury to conclude the hostile work environment was in retaliation for Ms. Lloyd’s protected activity.
As to damages, the court upheld the jury’s $90,000 compensatory (emotional distress damage) award, but held that the jury’s $500,000 punitive damages award was excessive, and that an award of $90,000 was more appropriate.