Hendricks v. Office of Clermont County Sheriff

Full title: Michelle M. Hendricks, Plaintiff v. Office of the Clermont County Sheriff…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Jan 5, 2006

Case No. 1:03-cv-572-TSH (S.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 1:03-cv-572-TSH.

January 5, 2006

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD AGAINST DEFENDANT WILLIS ON RETALIATORY HARASSMENT CLAIM

TIMOTHY HOGAN, Magistrate Judge

This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for trial commencing December 16, 2005.¹ At trial, Defendants moved for Judgement as a Matter of Law as to all Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, both at the close of Plaintiff's case-in-chief, and again at the conclusion of the evidence. The Court denied defendants' motions and the case was subsequently submitted to the jury on December 23, 2005, following a charge conference and the Court's jury charge to which none of the parties objected. The Court also submitted Special Interrogatories to the jury in conjunction with its written jury instructions.

1 The parties consented to the entry of final judgment by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 35).

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on three of her claims. According to the jury's responses to the Special Interrogatories, the jury found defendant Clermont County Sheriff's Office liable for retaliatory discharge and awarded plaintiff a total of $225,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found defendant Willis liable for retaliatory harassment and awarded $25,000.00 in punitive damages, but no actual damages. Finally, the jury found defendant Willis liable on plaintiff's claim for retaliation for the exercise of constitutional rights and awarded $25,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. (See Doc. 73, Jury Instructions and Special Interrogatories).

Plaintiff's claim for retaliatory harassment against defendant Willis and her corresponding request for punitive damages were asserted under Ohio law as individual supervisors cannot be held liable as "employers" under Title VII. See Wathen v. General Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 405-06 (6^th Cir. 1997). Ohio law makes clear that an award of punitive damages is not recoverable in the absence of proof of actual damages. Richard v. Hunter, 151 Ohio St. 185, 85 N.E.2d 109, 110 (Ohio 1949); Virostek v. Liberty Township Police Dep't/Trustees, 14 Fed. Appx. 439, 2001 WL 814933 at * 10-11 (6^th Cir. July 11, 2001). The jury did not award plaintiff any compensatory damages on her retaliatory harassment claim. (Doc. 73, p. 43). The jury's punitive damage award on this claim is therefore contrary to the law and the instructions as presented to the jury by this Court. For these reasons, defendant Willis is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the award of punitive damages for retaliatory harassment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 49 50.

To the extent that plaintiff might argue she was entitled to have the jury reconsider this claim in light of the Court's instructions, such an argument was waived by failing to raise it when the Special Interrogatories were returned and before the jury was discharged. Catalina v. City of Columbus, No. 88-4187, 1989 WL 123240 (6^th Cir. Oct. 17, 1989); Central Online Data Sys. v. Filenet Corp., No. 95-1016, 1996 WL 483031 (6^th Cir. Aug. 23, 1996).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT judgment is granted in favor of defendant Willis on plaintiff's retaliatory harassment claim for punitive damages. Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order and the balance of the Special Interrogatories returned by the jury.