In Russo v. Tuttnauer USA Company Limited et al, 21-cv-1720 (JMA)(AYS), 2025 WL 1604063 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2025), the court granted defendants’ motion for remittitur as to the jury’s award of $2.5 million for compensatory damages on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.
The court explained, and applied, the law as follows:
Under applicable New York state law, a monetary judgment is excessive “if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.” Allam v. Meyers, 906 F.Supp.2d 274, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “In determining whether an award ‘deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation,’ N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 5501(c), [district courts] compare the jury’s award to awards allowed in analogous cases involving similar types of injuries.” Allam, 906 F.Supp.2d at 286–87 (citing Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 425 (1996)). “While instructive, such earlier awards are not binding for [district courts’] review.” Id. at 287 (citing Lewis v. City of New York, 689 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)).
A court should determine whether the award is “within a reasonable range,” not just “balance the number of high and low awards and reject the verdict in the instant case if the number of lower awards is greater.” Tretola v. Cnty. of Nassau, 14 F. Supp. 3d 58, 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Ismail v. Cohen, 899 F.2d 183, 186 (2d Cir. 1990.) Additionally, “[i]n the compensatory damages context, the Second Circuit has adopted the ‘least intrusive standard’ for remittitur, which holds that ‘a district court should remit the jury’s award only to the maximum amount that would be upheld by the district court as not excessive.’ ” Herrera-Amador v. Lee, No. 16-CV-5915, 2024 WL 2316134, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2024) (quoting Earl v. Bouchard Transp. Co., 917 F.2d 1320, 1328 (2d Cir. 1990)).
Here, the jury awarded Plaintiff $2,500,000 in compensatory damages for her hostile work environment claim. (See ECF No. 107.) Given the details of this case, the Court finds that this award is excessive.
At trial, Plaintiff presented evidence of the pain and suffering she experienced as a result of the hostile work environment she experienced at Tuttnauer. Plaintiff testified that her mood began to change in 2016 and 2017, when she started to have eating problems, became socially withdrawn, stopped engaging in hobbies that previously interested her, and “fell into a deep depression.” (Tr. 860.) Plaintiff testified that her desire to avoid people led her to stop going out to eat with her husband like she used to. (Tr. 1277). Plaintiff began taking medication for depression in 2018 or 2019 and is still taking such medication. (Tr. 859-60, 1299.)
Plaintiff testified that for the first time in her life, she began suffering panic attacks in 2016 or 2017. (Tr. 858). She testified that during these panic attacks, she feels “all the air being sucked out” of her to the point where she feels like she is going to pass out, and then she starts to hyperventilate. (Id.) Plaintiff has reportedly suffered panic attacks “constantly” since 2016-17. (Id.) Plaintiff further stated that for about a year and a half, Defendant Connors “was constantly coming after me, and on my way to work in the morning I would have panic attacks not knowing if that day he was going to touch me or he was going to say something or he was going to threaten me with my job by saying things like ‘if you want to keep your job, you know what you have to do for me.’ ” (Tr. 846). Plaintiff also testified about experiencing insomnia, night sweats, nightmares, intestinal issues, and weight loss as a result of the emotional distress she experienced from the hostile work environment. (Tr. 858-60, 906-08, 1354.)
From June 2019 through June 2022, Plaintiff treated with Dr. Enoch Chan, a physician specializing in internal medicine who diagnosed Plaintiff with post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. (Tr. 1020.) Dr. Chan prescribed Plaintiff various medications to treat for PTSD, panic attacks, nightmares, and nervousness. (Tr. 866-67.) Plaintiff stopped seeing Dr. Chan in June 2022 because he no longer accepted her insurance, but she continued receiving these prescription medications through her primary care physician. (Tr. 865-67.)
Plaintiff’s husband and son both testified about changes in Plaintiff’s behavior in which she suffered panic attacks, became socially withdrawn, experienced eating problems and hair loss, and stopped engaging in hobbies that had previously interested her. (Tr. 1523-25, 1573-79.) Plaintiff’s husband testified that Plaintiff is still suffering this emotional distress to a large degree. (Tr. 1578-79.) Finally, Dr. Darlene Powell Garlington, an expert in clinical psychology, PTSD, and related disorders, testified that after having met with Plaintiff for three to four hours and administering various tests, she concluded that Plaintiff’s PTSD and psychological trauma were caused by the sexual harassment she suffered at work, including the attempted sexual assault by Defendant Connors. (Tr. 1421, 1443-44, 1465.)
Plaintiff argues the emotional damages she suffered are “egregious,” and should be compensated as such. (See Pl. Br. at 15) (citing Sooroojballie v. Port Auth., 816 Fed. App’x 536, 546 (2d Cir. 2020) (describing “egregious” emotional distress claims as those that “yield the highest awards and are warranted only where the employer’s conduct was outrageous and shocking or affected the physical health of the plaintiff.”)) While the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s emotional distress was in fact egregious, the Court cannot find comparable precedent to ground the jury’s award of $2,500,000. Neither, does it seem, can Plaintiff. Even the comparable cases Plaintiff cites only establish a compensatory damages award of $1,481,809.59 (in 2025 dollars2) at the high end in the context of a hostile work environment claim and attendant emotional damages. (See Pl. Br. at 22-23) (citing Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140, 163–64 (2d Cir. 2014)).
In Turley, the Second Circuit affirmed a jury’s award of $1,060,000 (which amounts to $1,481,809.59 in 2025 dollars) in compensatory damages for emotional distress that the plaintiff had suffered as a result of three years of racial harassment that comprised a hostile work environment. 774 F.3d at 146, 151-52, 162-63. As a result of the racial harassment campaign experienced by the plaintiff in Turley, the plaintiff had “lost 30 pounds; he suffered from panic attacks, depression, isolation and anxiety; [and] on two separate occasions, unable to withstand the hatred any longer, he was taken to the hospital directly from work.” Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 2d 425, 449 (W.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 774 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2014). At trial, Dr. Syed Jaffri, a psychiatrist, confirmed that Turley suffered from Post–Traumatic Stress Disorder and Adjustment Disorder and opined that Turley would continue to have triggers the rest of his life. Id. At one visit in 2008, Dr. Jaffri remembered that Turley presented as “noticeably distraught, depressed, hopeless, [and] helpless.” Id. The district court in Turley noted that while Turley “had possessed a colorful and animated personality,” the harassment left him “broken and dispirited.” Id. at 151.
Here, the Court recognizes that the jury similarly credited Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her extensive emotional distress and does not seek to disturb their findings. Rather, the Court puts the emotional distress damages in context. Like Turley, Plaintiff here experienced a host of emotional distress and suffering after a long period of harassment that created a hostile work environment. (See Tr. 859-60, 865-67, 1020.) Additionally, like the Plaintiff in Turley, Plaintiff presented testimony from her physician substantiating her condition. See Sooroojballie, 816 Fed. App’x at 546 (holding that egregious emotional distress claims “generally contain evidence of debilitating and permanent alterations in lifestyle” corroborated by mental health professionals.) (quoting Menghi v. Hart, 745 F. Supp. 2d 89, 107 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)). Finally, unlike Turley, Plaintiff did not experience multiple outright threats against her life and did not experience two hospitalizations during the course of the alleged hostile work environment. Overall, these factors weigh in favor of a smaller award than Turley. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the “maximum amount” Plaintiff can be awarded without being excessive is $1,000,000.
The court further rejected defendants’ reliance on cases awarding low-to-mid six figure emotional distress awards in sexual harassment and discrimination cases, noting that none of these cases are directly analogous to the instant case, and have key differences distinguishing them from this case.