Travers v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Travers v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/56

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 14- 174514- 1756

J OSEPH TRAVERS,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee, Cr oss- Appel l ant ,

v.

FLI GHT SERVI CES & SYSTEMS, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ant , Cr oss- Appel l ee.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Lynch, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

J ef f r ey M. Rosi n, wi t h whom Chr i st opher M. Pardo andConst angy, Br ooks & Smi t h LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant , cr oss-appel l ee.

Shannon Li ss- Ri or dan, wi t h whomLi cht en & Li ss- Ri or dan, P. C. ,was on br i ef , f or appel l ee, cross- appel l ant .

December 15, 2015


2/56

- 2 -

BARRON, Circuit Judge. A company t hat provi des skycap

ser vi ces t o ai r l i nes was def endi ng agai nst a cl ass act i on l awsui t

when one of t he skycaps t hat t he company had empl oyed brought hi s

own i ndi vi dual sui t agai nst t he company. The skycap al l eged i n

hi s sui t t hat t he company had f i r ed hi m f or hi s r ol e i n hel pi ng t o

or gani ze t he cl ass act i on. A j ur y event ual l y f ound f or t he skycap

i n t hat unl awf ul - t ermi nat i on sui t . And t he company now appeal s

bot h f r om t hat ver di ct and f r om t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s awar d of

damages and at t orney' s f ees and cost s. Because we f i nd no err or

i n any of t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ul i ngs t hat t he company chal l enges,

we af f i r m t hem.

At t he same t i me, t he skycap who won t he retal i at ory-

t er mi nat i on sui t cr oss- appeal s. He cont ends t hat t he Di st r i ct

Cour t er r ed by el i mi nat i ng and not t r ebl i ng t he j ur y' s awar d of

f r ont - pay damages, f ai l i ng t o gr ant hi s r equest t o t r ebl e t he

emot i onal - di st r ess damages awar d t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t had

or der ed on r emi t t i t ur , and denyi ng hi s r equest f or pr ej udgment

i nt er est . We af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deci si ons not t o t r ebl e

and not t o gr ant pr ej udgment i nt er est on t he emot i onal - di st r ess

damages, but we vacat e the Di st r i ct Cour t ' s el i mi nat i on of any

f r ont - pay awar d and r emand f or f ur t her proceedi ngs. I n addi t i on,

we cer t i f y a quest i on t o t he Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t

r egar di ng t he awar d of pr ej udgment i nt er est on Traver s' s backpay

damages.


3/56

- 3 -

I.

The def endant i n bot h t he cl ass act i on and t he unl awf ul -

t er mi nat i on sui t i s Fl i ght Ser vi ces and Syst ems, I nc. ( FSS) . Thi s

company pr ovi des skycap servi ces f or J etBl ue at Bost on' s Logan

I nt er nat i onal Ai r por t . The skycaps wor k on t he cur b j ust out si de

t he ai r por t , wher e they i ssue boar di ng passes and check l uggage.

The skycaps r ecei ve l ow wages and so, l i ke most wai t er s and

wai t r esses, r el y on t i ps f or t he bul k of t hei r pay.

The named pl ai nt i f f i n t he cl ass act i on agai nst FSS i s

t he same pl ai nt i f f who br i ngs t he r et al i at or y- t er mi nat i on sui t .

He i s J oseph Traver s, a skycap FSS empl oyed t o ser vi ce J et Bl ue

cust omers at Logan.

The cl ass act i on - - whi ch Tr avers hel ped t o

or gani ze - - concer ns J et Bl ue' s 2008 deci si on t o char ge $2 per bag

f or l uggage checked i n vi a skycap and t hen t o have J etBl ue, and

not t he skycaps, keep t hat $2 f ee. The compl ai nt - - capt i oned

"Tr aver s v. J et Bl ue and FSS" - - cont ends t hat t he new f ee

di mi ni shed t he t i p i ncome skycaps r ecei ved f r om cust omers and

vi ol ated both t he Massachuset t s wage and t i ps l aw and t he f ederal

Fai r Labor St andar ds Act ( FLSA) .

The sour ce of t he present di sput e i s FSS' s deci si on,

whi l e t hat cl ass act i on was pendi ng, t o f i r e Tr aver s. Tr aver s

al l eges t hat FSS di d not f i r e hi m because - - as FSS cont ends i s

t he case - - a cust omer had compl ai ned t hat Traver s had sol i ci t ed


4/56

- 4 -

a t i p f r om her . Tr aver s' s sui t al l eges, i nst ead, t hat FSS f i r ed

hi m i n r et al i at i on f or hi s rol e i n or gani zi ng t he skycaps' cl ass

act i on agai nst J et Bl ue and FSS and t hat FSS r el i ed on t he t i p-

sol i ci t at i on compl ai nt as a pr et ext f or t hat r et al i at or y f i r i ng.

Tr avers' s sui t f ur t her cont ends t hat , i n consequence, FSS vi ol at ed

both t he FLSA and t he Massachuset t s wage and t i ps l aw, as each of

t hose l aws prohi bi t s a company f r om t aki ng adver se act i on agai nst

an empl oyee who seeks t o obt ai n t he pr otect i on t hat t hose l aws

pr ovi de. See 29 U. S. C. 215( a) ( 3) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,

148A.

Bef or e Tr aver s' s r et al i at i on sui t went t o t he j ur y, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment t o FSS. But we t hen

r ever sed. Tr aver s v. Fl i ght Ser vs. & Sys. , I nc. , 737 F. 3d 144,

145 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . We hel d t hat , on t he summary j udgment r ecor d,

"a r easonabl e j ur y coul d r et ur n a ver di ct f or Tr aver s wi t hout

r el yi ng on i mpr obabl e i nf er ences or unsuppor t ed specul at i on. " I d.

On r emand, t he case went t o t r i al , and a j ur y f ound FSS

l i abl e f or r et al i at or y t er mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of bot h t he f eder al

and st at e st at ut es. The j ur y r ender ed i t s ver di ct i n a si ngl e

ver di ct f or m t hat di d not di f f er ent i at e bet ween t he st at e and

f ederal cl ai ms or apport i on t he award between t hem. The j ur y

awarded Travers $90, 000 i n back pay, $450, 000 i n f r ont pay, and

$400, 000 f or emot i onal di st r ess.


5/56

- 5 -

Fol l owi ng t he ver di ct , FSS r enewed i t s previ ous mot i on

f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw, see Fed. R. Ci v. P. 50( b) , and

al so moved i n t he al t er nat i ve f or a new t r i al or t o amend t he

j udgment . See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 59. The Di st r i ct Court or der ed

Tr avers t o r emi t al l but $50, 000 of t he emot i onal - di st r ess damages

or f ace a new t r i al . And t he Di st r i ct Cour t al so el i mi nat ed t he

ent i r e f r ont - pay awar d as unsuppor t ed by t he evi dence.

Tr avers t hen sought , under separ at e st at e st at ut es, t o

have t he damages award t r ebl ed, t o r ecei ve at t orney' s f ees and

cost s, and t o r ecei ve pr ej udgment i nt erest . See Mass. Gen. Laws

ch. 149, 150; i d. ch. 231, 6B. Wi t h r espect t o t r ebl i ng, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t agr eed t o t r ebl e t he backpay awar d t o $270, 000,

but decl i ned t o t r ebl e t he awar d f or emot i onal di st r ess. The

Di st r i ct Cour t al so di d not or der t he pr ej udgment i nt er est t hat

Tr avers had r equest ed, t hough t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d grant Tr avers

at t or ney' s f ees i n t he amount of $176, 185 and cost s of $7, 398. 45.

FSS and Tr aver s t i mel y f i l ed t hese appeal s. 1

1 We di scuss t he f eder al and st at e cl ai ms separ at el y onl yi nsof ar as doi ng so i s r el evant t o our anal ysi s.


6/56

- 6 -

II.

FSS r ai ses f i ve di st i nct ar gument s i n i t s appeal , and we

consi der each one bef or e t ur ni ng t o Tr aver s' s cr oss- appeal .

A.

FSS' s pr i mar y ar gument on appeal i s t hat t he Di st r i ct

Cour t err ed i n denyi ng FSS' s mot i ons f or j udgment as a mat t er of

l aw because "a reasonabl e j ur y woul d not have a l egal l y suf f i ci ent

evi dent i ar y basi s t o f i nd f or [ Tr aver s] . " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 50( a) ( 1) .

To wi n on hi s r et al i at i on cl ai ms at t r i al , Tr avers had t o show ( 1)

t hat he engaged i n conduct t hat t he FLSA and Massachuset t s wage

and t i ps l aw pr ot ect when he par t i ci pat ed i n t he cl ass act i on

agai nst FSS, ( 2) t hat FSS subj ect ed Tr aver s t o an adver se

empl oyment act i on when t he company f i r ed hi m, and ( 3) t hat FSS

f i r ed hi m because of hi s pr ot ect ed conduct . See Cl audi o- Got ay v.

Bect on Di cki nson Car i be, Lt d. , 375 F. 3d 99, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)

( descr i bi ng el ement s of a cl ai munder 29 U. S. C. 215( a) ( 3) ) ; Smi t h

v. Wi nt er Pl ace LLC, 851 N. E. 2d 417, 421 ( Mass. 2006) ( i nt er pr et i ng

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148A) .

FSS does not di sput e that , under bot h t he f eder al and

t he st at e st at ut es on whi ch Tr aver s' s i ndi vi dual sui t r est s,

Tr avers engaged i n prot ect ed conduct or t hat FSS subj ect ed hi m t o

an adver se empl oyment act i on. The di sput e concer ns onl y what

caused FSS t o f i r e Tr aver s - - hi s hel p i n or gani zi ng t he cl ass


7/56

- 7 -

act i on or , as t he company cont ends, hi s sol i ci t at i on of a t i p i n

vi ol at i on of company pol i cy.

To r esol ve t hi s di sput e, we need not deci de t he preci se

st andar d of causat i on t hat a pl ai nt i f f must meet t o pr ove unl awf ul

r et al i at i on under ei t her t he st at e or f eder al st at ut es on whi ch

Tr avers' s sui t r est s. The par t i es appear t o agr ee, as t hey di d

when thi s case came bef or e us on summar y j udgment , t hat each

st at ut e r equi r es t he pl ai nt i f f t o show "but - f or " causat i on t o pr ove

r et al i at i on. See Tr aver s, 737 F. 3d at 147 & n. 1.

Thus, our t ask i s st r ai ght f or war d. Because we ar e

r evi ewi ng a r enewed mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw

f ol l owi ng a j ur y ver di ct , we must vi ew t he evi dence of causat i on

"i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct " and "af f i r m unl ess

t he evi dence, t oget her wi t h al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of

t he ver di ct , coul d l ead a r easonabl e per son t o onl y one concl usi on,

namel y, t hat t he movi ng par t y was ent i t l ed t o j udgment . " Ast r o-

Med, I nc. v. Ni hon Kohden Am. , I nc. , 591 F. 3d 1, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

( quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

FSS ar gues t hat i t i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er

of l aw because t he t r i al r ecor d pr ovi des t oo l i t t l e evi dence t o

suppor t a f i ndi ng of but - f or causat i on i f we excl ude - - as FSS

says we must - - one par t i cul ar pi ece of t est i mony t hat t he j ur y

hear d. Thi s test i mony came f r om Traver s, and i t concer ned what


8/56

- 8 -

Tr avers cont ends Rob Ni chol s, a mi d- l evel manager i n char ge of FSS

oper at i ons at Logan, t ol d hi m.

Tr avers t est i f i ed t hat Ni chol s t ol d hi m t hat FSS' s

owner s and seni or manager s t ol d Ni chol s t hat t he l awsui t "was

cost i ng [ t he company] a l ot of money, and t hat [ Ni chol s] shoul d

get r i d of Tr aver s. " Tr aver s went on t o t est i f y t hat Ni chol s al so

advi sed Tr aver s t o dr op t he l awsui t because, ot her wi se, Tr aver s

woul d "pr obabl y l ose [ hi s] j ob. "

At t r i al , t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ej ected FSS' s cont ent i on

t hat Traver s' s t est i mony concerni ng Ni chol s shoul d be excl uded as

hear say. Af t er t he j ur y r et ur ned a ver di ct f or Tr aver s, however ,

t he Di st r i ct Cour t r evi si t ed t hi s r ul i ng i n connect i on wi t h FSS' s

mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. I n doi ng so, t he Di st r i ct

Cour t changed i t s mi nd and concl uded t hat Travers' s t est i mony

concer ni ng Ni chol s shoul d have been st r uck. But t he Di st r i ct Cour t

st i l l deni ed FSS' s mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. 2

2Under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 801( d) ( 2) ( D) , t est i mony aboutan out - of - cour t st at ement by a non- t est i f yi ng per son i s not hear sayi f " [ t ] he st at ement i s of f er ed agai nst an opposi ng par t y" and "wasmade by t he par t y' s agent or empl oyee on a mat t er wi t hi n t he scopeof t hat r el at i onshi p and whi l e i t exi st ed. " Tr aver s t est i f i ed ondi r ect exami nat i on t hat hi s conver sat i on wi t h Ni chol s occur r ed i near l y summer of 2010. But on cr oss- exami nat i on, when FSS' s counselnot ed t hat Ni chol s had been f i r ed by FSS i n t he spr i ng of 2010( and so woul d not have been empl oyed by FSS i n the ear l y summer of2010) , Tr aver s apol ogi zed f or mi xi ng up t he dat es. Tr aver scl ar i f i ed t hat t he conver sat i on occur r ed i n t he spr i ng of 2010"r i ght bef or e [ Ni chol s] was t er mi nat ed. " Al t hough Tr aver s' st est i mony about Ni chol s was bef or e the j ur y when i t r et ur ned i t sver di ct , t he Di st r i ct Cour t l at er concl uded t hat Ni chol s' s


9/56

- 9 -

FSS now ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t was r i ght t he

second t i me t hat i t r ul ed on whet her Traver s' s t est i mony concer ni ng

Ni chol s shoul d have been st r uck as hear say. And FSS goes on t o

ar gue that , wi t hout t hat t est i mony, t he recor d does not per mi t a

r easonabl e j ur y to concl ude t hat FSS f i r ed Tr aver s because of hi s

r ol e i n or gani zi ng t he cl ass act i on. See Wei sgr am v. Mar l ey Co. ,

528 U. S. 440, 453- 54 ( 2000) ( di scussi ng exci si ng cer t ai n

i nadmi ssi bl e evi dence f r om t he r ecor d f or pur poses of r evi ewi ng a

r enewed mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw) . I nst ead, FSS

ar gues, t he evi dence t hat r emai ns shows onl y that FSS f i r ed Traver s

because t he company bel i eved Tr aver s had sol i ci t ed a t i p f r om a

cust omer . 3

I n suppor t of t hat cont ent i on, FSS not es t hat Susan

Col l i er - - t he manager who actual l y f i r ed Tr aver s - - t est i f i ed

st atement t o Travers "was made post - empl oyment " and t hus Ni chol shad not been an agent of a par t y- opponent at t he t i me he made t hesest at ement s. For t hat r eason, t he Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded t hatt he st atement s shoul d have been excl uded as hear say.

3 FSS not es t hat , i n r ever si ng t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s ear l i ergr ant of summar y j udgment i n thi s case, we rel i ed on the Ni chol sevi dence. Ther e, we expl ai ned t hat a r easonabl e j ur y mi ght r el yon t he Ni chol s evi dence t o concl ude t hat " r et al i at or y ani musr esi ded at t he apex of t he or gani zat i onal hi er ar chy" and "spr eadt o ot her manager s, " i ncl udi ng t he manager t hat deci ded t o f i r eTr avers. Tr avers, 737 F. 3d at 147. But our opi ni on, even on t hesummary j udgment r ecor d, di d not cont end that t he Ni chol s evi dencewas necessar y, onl y t hat i t was suf f i ci ent . And, of cour se we ar enow assessi ng t he deni al of t he mot i on f or a j udgment as a mat t erof l aw. Thus, t he r ecor d bef or e us i s di f f er ent f r om t he onepr esent ed on summary j udgment . Nothi ng i n our deci si on here,t her ef or e, i s at odds wi t h our pr i or r ul i ng i n t hi s l i t i gat i on.


10/56

- 10 -

t hat t he company f i r es a skycap every t i me a passenger compl ai ns

i n wr i t i ng t hat , i n t he passenger ' s opi ni on, t he skycap t r i ed t o

sol i ci t a t i p. And Col l i er di d al so st at e t hat "i f t he passenger

t akes t he t i me t o st op and make a wr i t t en compl ai nt , i t happened, "

and t hus t hat t he wr i t t en compl ai nt t he cust omer f i l ed agai nst

Tr avers here - - t hough t he cust omer never t est i f i ed at

t r i al - - suppl i ed a f oundat i on f or t he company' s concl usi on t hat

Tr avers made t he sol i ci t at i on.

But al t hough a j ur y coul d have bel i eved t he reason t hat

FSS gave f or f i r i ng Traver s, a j ur y was not compel l ed t o do so on

t hi s r ecor d. For whi l e t he r emai ni ng evi dence does not r eveal a

smoki ng gun pr ovi ng r et al i at i on - - or even i ncl ude di r ect evi dence

of a command f r om on hi gh t o f i r e Tr aver s t o di sr upt t he cl ass

act i on sui t - - t he r emai ni ng evi dence i s suf f i ci ent t o suppor t an

i nf er ence of r et al i at i on. See Speen v. Cr own Cl ot hi ng Cor p. , 102

F. 3d 625, 635 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( "[ A] pl ai nt i f f need not . . .

pr oduce ' smoki ng- gun' evi dence . . . . Ther e ar e many vei ns of

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat may be mi ned . . . . " ) ; Woost er v.

Abdow Cor p. , 709 N. E. 2d 71, 76 ( Mass. App. Ct . 1999) ( st at i ng t hat

"smoki ng gun evi dence . . . i s not r equi r ed" and t hat t he

"pl ai nt i f f ' s ul t i mat e bur den of per suasi on may be

sat i sf i ed . . . [ by] ci r cumst ant i al evi dence" ( quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .


11/56

- 11 -

To begi n wi t h, a j ury coul d di sbel i eve Col l i er ' s

t est i mony about t he necessar y consequences t hat f ol l ow - - as a

mat t er of FSS pol i cy - - f r om a cust omer ' s submi ssi on of a wr i t t en

compl ai nt about an empl oyee' s sol i ci t at i on of a t i p. Col l i er

her sel f t est i f i ed t hat t he det er mi nat i on of whet her an empl oyee

di d sol i ci t a t i p r equi r es the exer ci se of j udgment . As Col l i er

put i t , you have t o l ook at t he " f act s and ci r cumst ances of ever y

case. " And t he evi dence al so i ndi cat ed t hat FSS under t akes an

i nvest i gat i on f ol l owi ng a cust omer compl ai nt bef or e det er mi ni ng

whet her or not t i p sol i ci t at i on actual l y occur r ed.

I n addi t i on, t est i mony f r om Nabi l Agba, a f or mer FSS

skycap super vi sor i n Bost on, i ndi cat ed t hat t er mi nat i on was not

aut omat i c upon r ecei pt of a compl ai nt and, i ndeed, coul d depend on

f actor s unr el at ed t o whet her t i p sol i ci t at i on had, i n f act ,

occur r ed. Agba t est i f i ed t hat " t her e was not a st andar d pr ocess"

f or who woul d get f i r ed and who woul d not f ol l owi ng accusat i ons of

t i p sol i ci t at i on. I nst ead, Agba t est i f i ed t hat t he gener al manager

i n Bost on woul d base hi s r ecommendat i on t o Col l i er on " t he empl oyee

r ecords and t he j ob per f ormance" of t he empl oyee and somet i mes

woul d " j ust chal k- up t he accusat i on t o some t ype of

mi scommuni cat i on wi t h t he passenger" and not f i r e t he skycap.

Not abl y, Agba cl ar i f i ed t hat manager s' at t i t udes t owar d empl oyees

col or ed t he ul t i mat e deci si on: "Fr om my exper i ence, i f t hey l i ke


12/56

- 12 -

t he per son, t hey t r y t o hel p t hem and pr otect t hem as much as t hey

can. "

Thus, a j ury coul d have r easonabl y concl uded t hat a

cust omer compl ai nt about t i p sol i ci t at i on woul d not aut omat i cal l y

l ead to t he di smi ssal of t he empl oyee who al l egedl y made the

sol i ci t at i on. I nst ead, a j ur y coul d r easonabl y have f ound t hat

f act or s unr el at ed t o whet her t he sol i ci t at i on occur r ed coul d bear

on t he di sci pl i nar y consequences t hat woul d f ol l ow. And so l ong

as t he j ur y was f r ee t o concl ude t hat FSS had t he di scr et i on t o

make a j udgment whether t o f i r e despi t e a compl ai nt - - and t o make

t hat j udgment f or r easons unr el at ed t o whet her t he sol i ci t at i on i n

f act occur r ed - - t he j ur y was al so f r ee to consi der whet her some

r eason ot her t han the cust omer compl ai nt t i pped t he bal ance, so t o

speak, wi t h r egar d t o t he deci si on t o f i r e Tr aver s.

Of cour se, t he recor d must st i l l cont ai n enough evi dence

t o suppor t a j ur y' s concl usi on t hat t hi s other r eason was t he

company' s desi r e t o r et al i at e f or Tr aver s' s pr ot ect ed conduct .

But we concl ude t hat t he j ur y di d have bef ore i t enough evi dence

t o suppor t a r easonabl e i nf er ence i n t hat r egar d - - even i f we

st r i ke f r om consi der at i on Tr aver s' s t est i mony t hat Ni chol s had

t ol d hi m about t he i nstr uct i on f rom hi gher of f i ci al s to f i re

Tr avers due t o hi s i nvol vement i n t he cl ass act i on. For whi l e t he

r emai ni ng t est i mony was not as di r ect l y pr obat i ve on t hat poi nt as


13/56

- 13 -

was t he t est i mony f r om Travers about what Ni chol s had supposedl y

sai d t o hi m, t he r est of t he evi dence was st i l l st r ong enough.

I n par t i cul ar , t he j ur y hear d t est i mony f r om ot her FSS

empl oyees - - i n management posi t i ons - - t hat i ndi cat ed t hat FSS' s

owner s and seni or managers were very concerned about t he skycap

cl ass act i on. Nabi l Agba, t he f or mer FSS skycap super vi sor ,

t est i f i ed t hat t her e was " a l ot of t al k among FSS manager s about

[ t he under l yi ng] l awsui t " and t hat he "al ways hear d [ f r om t he FSS

Bost on gener al manager t hat ] t he cor por at e [ l eader shi p] i s not

happy about [ t he skycaps' cl ass act i on] . " And Agba f ur t her

t est i f i ed t hat FSS' s chi ef execut i ve of f i cer t ol d t he l ocal FSS

Bost on manager ( who t hen t ol d Agba) t hat "we can' t af f ord t o l ose

cases because [ t he CEO] doesn' t l i ke i t . "

The j ury al so hear d evi dence t hat r easonabl y l i nked

t hose general concerns wi t hi n management about t he cl ass act i on t o

concer ns about Tr aver s' s i nvol vement i n t he cl ass act i on i n

par t i cul ar . For exampl e, t he j ur y had bef or e i t evi dence t hat

Susan Col l i er , t he FSS manager who act ual l y f i r ed Traver s, was

aware of seni or management ' s concerns about t he skycaps' l awsui t

and t hat she was responsi bl e f or addr essi ng t hose concer ns. Her

own t est i mony showed t hat she was t he poi nt person on FSS' s def ense

agai nst t he l awsui t and t hat she spoke wi t h FSS' s pr esi dent about


14/56

- 14 -

t he case f r equent l y. 4 And Col l i er agr eed t hat t he pr esi dent was

i ncreasi ngl y f r ust r at ed wi t h t he expense of l i t i gat i on - - expenses

t hat she was r esponsi bl e f or mi ni mi zi ng and j ust i f yi ng.

Mor eover , Col l i er ' s t est i mony pr ovi ded suppor t f or

concl udi ng t hat she knew about Tr aver s' s l eadi ng r ol e i n t he

skycaps' cl ass act i on at t he t i me she made t he deci si on t o f i r e

hi m. Col l i er her sel f t est i f i ed t hat she knew when she f i r ed

Tr avers t hat Tr avers was a pl ai nt i f f . And whi l e she deni ed knowi ng

he was t he l ead pl ai nt i f f , t he capt i on f or t he case f or whi ch she

was t he poi nt per son was " Traver s v. J et Bl ue and FSS. "

Agai nst t hi s backgr ound, Tr aver s' s t est i mony about a

conversat i on t hat he had wi t h an FSS dut y manager at Bost on Logan

hel ps to suppor t a r easonabl e i nf er ence of r et al i at i on. Accor di ng

t o Travers, t he dut y manager , EqeremMero, expr essl y warned Travers

t hat hi s j ob was i n j eopardy because of FSS management ' s di sl i ke

of Tr aver s' s r ol e i n t he skycaps' cl ass act i on by sayi ng: "These

guys, t hey' r e r i ch. They' r e power f ul . They' r e danger ous.

They - - you know, you' r e goi ng t o l ose your j ob over t hi s. You

shoul d get out of t he l awsui t . " And Tr aver s al so t est i f i ed t hat

Ar bi n Cot e, an FSS assi st ant manager at Bost on Logan, t ol d hi m

t hat he "shoul d st op and get out of t he l awsui t . "

4 Col l i er even st at ed i n her deposi t i on t hat she "al ways"spoke wi t h t he company pr esi dent about t he case, t hough shequi bbl ed wi t h "al ways" i n her l i ve t est i mony.


15/56

- 15 -

Thi s t est i mony f r om super vi sor s and manager s about how

Tr avers' s r ol e i n t he cl ass act i on pl aced hi s j ob i n j eopar dy i s

especi al l y si gni f i cant gi ven Tr aver s' s t est i mony about a cur i ous

exchange that he had wi t h t he Bost on manager who recommended that

Col l i er f i r e Tr aver s af t er t hat manager had been assi gned t o

i nvest i gat e t he compl ai nt t hat Tr aver s had sol i ci t ed a t i p.

Tr avers t est i f i ed t hat , dur i ng t he t i p- sol i ci t at i on i nvest i gat i on,

he asked t hat manager , Li sa Varotsi s, when he coul d get back to

wor k and that she r epl i ed, "You know why t hi s i s happeni ng. "

Tr avers f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat he t hen asked t hat manager i f t he

i nvest i gat i on was happeni ng because of hi s r ol e i n t he skycaps'

cl ass acti on, and Var ot si s r epl i ed, "I can' t t al k about i t , " and

wal ked away.

Thus, on Tr avers' s account , when he conf r ont ed t he

per son r esponsi bl e i n t he f i r st i nst ance f or deci di ng whet her he

had sol i ci t ed t he t i p, she seemi ngl y decl i ned t o conf i r m i n t he

st r ai ght f or war d way one mi ght ot her wi se expect t hat t he

t i p- sol i ci t at i on compl ai nt was t he act ual r eason f or t he

i nvest i gat i on i nt o t hat compl ai nt . And, i ndi cat i ng t hat she was

barr ed f r om doi ng so, she r ef used t o comment on whether t he r eal

r eason f or t he i nvest i gat i on was hi s r ol e i n t he cl ass act i on.

See Gmez- Gonzl ez v. Rur al Oppor t uni t i es, I nc. , 626 F. 3d 654,

662- 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( "Pretext can be shown by such weaknesses,

i mpl ausi bi l i t i es, i nconsi st enci es, i ncoher enci es, or


16/56

- 16 -

cont r adi ct i ons i n t he empl oyer ' s pr of f er ed l egi t i mat e r easons f or

i t s act i on t hat a r easonabl e f act f i nder coul d r at i onal l y f i nd t hem

unwort hy of cr edence and hence i nf er t hat t he empl oyer di d not act

f or t he asser t ed non- di scr i mi nat or y r easons. " ( quot i ng Mor gan v.

Hi l t i , I nc. , 108 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( 10t h Ci r . 1997) ) ) ; Ci t y of Sal em

v. Mass. Comm' n Agai nst Di scr i mi nat i on, 693 N. E. 2d 1026, 1038

( Mass. App. Ct . 1998) ( same) , over r ul ed on ot her gr ounds by

Tr ust ees of Heal t h & Hosps. of Bost on, I nc. v. Mass . Comm' n Agai nst

Di scr i mi nat i on, 839 N. E. 2d 861 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2005) .

Fi nal l y, and al so suppor t i ng Tr aver s' s account , Nabi l

Agba test i f i ed t hat he over hear d t he Bost on general manager of FSS

sayi ng - - af t er Tr aver s had been f i r ed - - t hat "[ t ] he pl an [ t o

def end agai nst t he cl ass act i on] was t o get mor e [ pl ai nt i f f s] t o

dr op out of t he case, " and, "af t er a f ew mont hs, peopl e st ar t ed

dr oppi ng out . " Agba al so t est i f i ed t hat t he gener al manager spoke

wi t h skycaps one by one about t he cl ass act i on and t hat skycaps

st ar t ed dr oppi ng out of t he case j ust a f ew mont hs af t er Tr aver s

was f i r ed.

Ther e ar e pot ent i al l y i nnocent i nter pret at i ons of each

of t he f act s r el at ed by these wi t nesses, even assumi ng t hei r

t est i mony shoul d be cr edi t ed. The l ower - l evel manager s' war ni ngs

about what woul d happen t o Tr avers i f he st ayed i nvol ved i n t he

cl ass act i on l i t i gat i on, f or exampl e, coul d be di smi ssed as

specul at i ve pr edi ct i ons about what mi ght happen r at her t han sol i d


17/56

- 17 -

assessment s about management ' s i nt ent i ons der i ved f r om comment s

made by hi gher - ups wi t hi n FSS. Si mi l ar l y, Var ot si s' s comment t hat

Tr avers "kn[ e] w why t hi s i s happeni ng" coul d have been a r ef er ence

t o t he cust omer ' s accusat i on of t i p sol i ci t at i on and not hi ng mor e,

whi l e her st at ement t hat she coul d not t al k about t he r eason f or

t he i nvest i gat i on mi ght have been unr el at ed t o a di r ect i on f r om

above and not mot i vated by a desi r e t o cover up an i mpermi ss i bl e

pur pose. And Agba' s st atement s about management ' s pl an t o get t he

cl ass acti on pl ai nt i f f s t o dr op out - - even i f t r ue - - do not

expr essl y al l ege t hat t hat pl an i nvol ved an ef f or t t o f i r e

empl oyees on t r umped- up grounds.

But whi l e t he j ur y di d not have t o f i nd f or Tr aver s on

t he basi s of t hi s evi dence, t he j ur y di d f i nd f or hi m. And f or

pur poses of t hi s appeal , t hat i s deci si ve. What ever hol es one

mi ght poke i n t he evi dence t hat f avor ed Tr aver s' s ver si on of

event s, t hat evi dence consi der ed as a whol e was not so def i ci ent

t hat no r easonabl e j ur y coul d have r el i ed on i t i n f i ndi ng f or

Tr avers. Rat her , t he j ury coul d r easonabl y have concl uded t hat

t he evi dent concer ns wi t hi n FSS about t he cl ass act i on sui t i n

gener al , and Tr aver s' s r ol e i n t hat l i t i gat i on i n par t i cul ar , made

pl ausi bl e the di r ect war ni ngs t hat Tr aver s says t hat he recei ved

f r om super vi sors and manager s t hat he woul d be f i r ed f or hi s

i nvol vement . And Tr avers' s t est i mony about t he company

i nvest i gat or ' s seemi ngl y odd r el uct ance t o conf i r m t hat t he


18/56

- 18 -

t i p- sol i ci t at i on compl ai nt was t he r eason f or t he

i nvest i gat i on - - r ef l ect ed i n her comment , "I can' t t al k about

i t " - - l ends addi t i onal credence t o t hat i nt er pr et at i on of t he

evi dence. So, t oo, does t he FSS manager ' s t est i mony about t he

pl an t o get skycaps t o dr op out of t he cl ass act i on i n t he wake of

Tr avers' s f i r i ng. See Tr ai nor v. HEI Hospi t al i t y, LLC, 699 F. 3d

19, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( af f i r mi ng deni al of mot i on f or j udgment as

a mat t er of l aw i n a ret al i at or y t er mi nat i on case under t he Age

Di scr i mi nat i on i n Empl oyment Act " [ b] ecause t he recor d suppor t s

conf l i ct i ng ver si ons of t he t r ut h, [ so] i t became t he j ur y' s

f unct i on - - not t he cour t ' s - - t o choose bet ween t hese ver si ons" ) ;

cf . Hodgens v. Gen. Dynami cs Cor p. , 144 F. 3d 151, 171 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) ( "St at ement s by super vi sors carr yi ng t he i nf er ence t hat t he

super vi sor har bor ed ani mus agai nst pr ot ect ed cl asses of peopl e or

conduct ar e cl ear l y pr obat i ve of pr et ext " and r et al i at or y

t er mi nat i on "even i f t hat i nf er ence i s not t he onl y one t hat coul d

be dr awn f r omt he comment . " ( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .

I n l i ght of t hi s evi dence, we need not deci de whet her

t he t i p- sol i ci t at i on compl ai nt was i n f act wel l f ounded - - a poi nt

t hat Tr aver s vi gor ousl y cont est s. I t i s enough t o obser ve t hat

t he j ur y coul d deci de f or i t sel f , and r easonabl y so, t hat FSS had

di scret i on at t he t i me i t chose t o f i r e Tr aver s, not wi t hst andi ng

t he t i p- sol i ci t at i on compl ai nt , and t hat FSS chose t o exer ci se

t hat di scr et i on adver sel y t o Tr aver s because of hi s r ol e i n t he


19/56

- 19 -

cl ass act i on and t hen r el i ed on t he t i p- sol i ci t at i on expl anat i on

as a pr et extual cover . 5 We t hus have no basi s on t hi s r ecor d t o

second- guess t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deci si on t hat t he j ur y shoul d

not be second- guessed. Accor di ngl y, we af f i r mt he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

deci si on to deny t he mot i ons f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.

B.

Even i f t he evi dence suf f i ci ent l y suppor t s t he ver di ct

wi t hout Tr aver s' s t est i mony concer ni ng Ni chol s, FSS ar gues, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t st i l l er r ed by denyi ng t he company' s mot i on f or a

new t r i al under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59( a) ( 1) ( A) . FSS

i dent i f i es t he er r or t hat r equi r es a new t r i al as t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s deci si on t o admi t Tr aver s' s t est i mony t hat Ni chol s had

t ol d hi m about t he r et al i at or y t hr eat f r om FSS' s chi ef execut i ve

of f i cer . FSS cont ends t hat t he ver di ct must be t hr own out because

5 For t hi s r eason, we need not di ve deepl y i nt o what t heevi dence shows about how ot her skycaps who had been accused of t i psol i ci t at i on wer e di sci pl i ned by FSS i n t he past . The par t i esshar pl y di sput e whet her Tr aver s was t r eat ed j ust l i ke t hese ot herempl oyees. But whatever t he r ecor d shows about t he handf ul ofcases t hat ar e t he f ocus of t he par t i es' di sput e on t hat scor e,t he recor d shows t hat t her e was conf l i ct i ng t est i mony about whet hert he company had di scr et i on t o f i r e ( or not ) an empl oyee who hadsol i ci t ed a t i p. One wi t ness t est i f i ed t hat t he company had suchdi scr et i on and exer ci sed i t based on whet her t he company " l i ke[ d] "t he empl oyee. That t est i mony and t he other t est i mony r egardi ngFSS' s di scret i on, i n our vi ew, pr ovi des a basi s f or a j ur y t oconcl ude t hat FSS had di scr et i on about whet her t o f i r e Tr aver s,even i f he had engaged i n t he same ki nd of t i p sol i ci t at i on t hatr esul t ed i n t he f i r i ng of ot her empl oyees. For t hat r eason, t hekey i ssue concer ns whet her t he recor d r easonabl y suppor t s a f i ndi ngt hat t he company exer ci sed t hi s di scr et i on i n Tr aver s' s case duet o hi s rol e i n t he cl ass acti on.


20/56

- 20 -

Tr avers' s t est i mony about Ni chol s was i nadmi ssi bl e hear say t hat

was so hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al t hat i t i r r evocabl y t ai nt ed t he j ur y' s

ver di ct , even i f t he remai ni ng evi dence ( st andi ng on i t s own and

t hus unt ai nt ed by what t he j ur y hear d about Ni chol s' s conver sat i on

wi t h Traver s) coul d have been enough t o sust ai n t he ver di ct agai nst

a mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.

But FSS f ai l ed t o pr esent t hi s ar gument about pr ej udi ce

i n t he mot i on f or a new t r i al t hat FSS f i l ed i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t ,

as t hat mot i on r el i ed on di st i nct gr ounds. See Docket Ent r y No.

152, at 16- 21. 6 And even i f we wer e t o l ook past FSS' s f ai l ur e t o

r ai se t hi s ar gument unt i l now, see Sampson v. Eaton Corp. , 809

F. 2d 156, 161 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( concl udi ng t hat an evi dent i ar y

i ssue, as a "di scret i onar y mat t er . . . pecul i ar l y appr opr i at e"

f or r esol ut i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t , i s wai ved when not r ai sed i n

a new- t r i al mot i on, and decl i ni ng t o r evi ew i t f ur t her on appeal ) ,

we woul d r evi ew t hi s unpr eser ved cl ai m onl y f or pl ai n er r or .

6 FSS di d argue bel ow t hat t he Ni chol s t est i mony wasi mpr oper l y admi t t ed i nt o evi dence and was pr ej udi ci al , but FSS di dso onl y i n connect i on wi t h i t s mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er ofl aw, i n whi ch FSS ar gued t hat t he absence of Traver s' s t est i monyabout Ni chol s l ef t a f at al hol e i n Tr aver s' s pr oof of r et al i at or yani mus. See Docket Ent r y No. 152, at 12- 16. FSS of f ered noargument bel ow as t o why er r oneous admi ss i on of t he Ni chol st est i mony t ai nt ed t he j ur y such t hat a new t r i al was r equi r ed eveni f t he evi dence r emai ni ng was ot her wi se suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hever di ct . I nst ead, FSS' s ar gument f or a new t r i al r est ed on ot herways i n whi ch FSS cont ends t he j ur y was exposed t o mater i al i tshoul d not have been.


21/56

- 21 -

But FSS r ai sed t hi s new- t r i al ar gument onl y by

r ef er enci ng i t i n a si ngl e sent ence i n t he summar y of ar gument ,

and i n anot her l one sent ence i n t he ar gument sect i on t hat i s

accompani ed by a ci t at i on t o a si ngl e case that i nvol ved a

pr eserved evi dent i ar y ar gument and so di d not i nvol ve pl ai n- er r or

r evi ew. FSS t hus makes no ar gument on appeal f or why we shoul d

concl ude t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s er r or her e ( i f i ndeed t her e was

er r or ) was cl ear and obvi ous, pr ej udi ci al , and r esul t ed i n a

mi scar r i age of j ust i ce, as we woul d have t o concl ude to rever se

under t he pl ai n- er r or st andar d. See Chest nut v. Ci t y of Lowel l ,

305 F. 3d 18, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( en banc) ( per cur i am) ( appl yi ng

pl ai n- er r or r evi ew t o unpr eser ved cl ai mof er r or i n a ci vi l case) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( " [ I ] ssues

adver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t

at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. " ) .

Tr ue, t he Di st r i ct Court di d concl ude af t er t he t r i al

t hat i t had er r ed i n al l owi ng t he j ur y t o hear t he t est i mony f r om

Tr avers about what Ni chol s t ol d hi m. But t he quest i on on pl ai n-

er r or r evi ew i s not whet her t he Di st r i ct Cour t was r i ght t o f i nd

t hat i t s f i r st pass on t he hear say i ssue was mi st aken. The

quest i on i s whet her t he deci si on t o deny the new t r i al was

obvi ousl y wr ong - - a st andar d t hat woul d not seem t o be met i n a

case i nvol vi ng an evi dent i ar y j udgment cal l about t he t est i mony

concerni ng Ni chol s t hat was at l east a cl ose one. And even


22/56

- 22 -

assumi ng t he i ni t i al evi dent i ar y rul i ng was pl ai nl y wr ong, t her e

st i l l woul d r emai n on pl ai n- er r or r evi ew t he quest i on whet her t he

deci si on t o deny a new t r i al r esul t ed i n a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce,

gi ven al l of t he ot her t est i mony t hat t he j ur y coul d have r el i ed

on t o suppor t Tr aver s' s cl ai m of unl awf ul r et al i at i on.

I n the absence of any f ocused argument s by FSS as t o why

t he er r or was obvi ous or t he har mso gr eat as t o cause a mi scar r i age

of j ust i ce, we decl i ne t o concl ude t hat t he company' s unpr eserved

chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deni al of t he mot i on f or a new

t r i al shoul d succeed. See Wel l s Real Est at e, I nc. v. Gr eat er

Lowel l Bd. of Real t or s, 850 F. 2d 803, 811 ( 1st Ci r . 1988)

( "Wher e . . . t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng woul d cal l i nt o pl ay a

di scret i onar y mat t er , pecul i ar l y appr opr i at e f or t hat cour t , i t

becomes mor e i mpor t ant t o br i ng t he er r or f i r st t o t hat cour t ' s

at t ent i on. " ( quot i ng Sampson, 809 F. 2d at 161) ) ; see al so Zanni no,

895 F. 2d at 17. We t hus af f i r m t he deci si on t o deny t he mot i on

f or new t r i al .

C.

FSS next chal l enges t he j ur y' s awar d of back pay, whi ch,

af t er t he Di st r i ct Cour t t r ebl ed i t , t ot al ed $270, 000. See Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 149, 150. FSS r ai ses t hr ee di st i nct ar gument s,

each of whi ch r el i es on Tr aver s' s t est i mony t hat he under - r epor t ed

hi s t i ps to FSS. We r ej ect each ar gument .


23/56

- 23 -

FSS f i r st ar gues t hat we must r educe or el i mi nat e t he

award because Travers has uncl ean hands due t o hi s under- r eport i ng

of t i p i ncome t o FSS. The Di st r i ct Cour t r ej ect ed t hi s ar gument ,

concl udi ng t hat " i t i s t r oubl i ng t hat t her e may have been . . . a

whi f f of suspected t ax f r aud . . . but . . . t hi s was not a t ax

case and i t i s not my j ob t o pr osecut e peopl e f or pot ent i al t ax

vi ol at i ons. " We r evi ew t hi s deci si on t o wi t hhol d an equi t abl e

def ense f or abuse of di scr et i on, Mur phy v. Ti mber l ane Reg' l Sch.

Di st . , 22 F. 3d 1186, 1189 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) , and we f i nd none her e.

"The doct r i ne of uncl ean hands onl y appl i es when t he

cl ai mant ' s mi sconduct i s di r ect l y rel at ed t o t he mer i t s of t he

cont r over sy bet ween t he par t i es, t hat i s, when t he t awdr y act s i n

some measure af f ect t he equi t abl e r el at i ons bet ween t he par t i es i n

r espect of somet hi ng br ought bef or e t he cour t f or adj udi cat i on. "

Texaco Puer t o Ri co, I nc. v. Dep' t of Consumer Af f ai r s, 60 F. 3d

867, 880 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ;

see al so N. Y. , N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Pi er ce Coach Li nes, 183 N. E.

836, 837 ( Mass. 1933) ( " [ E] qui t y wi l l not i nt er f er e i n behal f of

one who i s gui l t y of i l l egal or i nequi t abl e conduct i n t he mat t er

wi t h r egar d t o whi ch he seeks i t s act i on . . . . " ) . FSS ci t es no

evi dence, however , i ndi cat i ng t hat Tr aver s' s under - r epor t i ng of

t i ps af f ect ed hi s equi t abl e r el at i onshi p wi t h FSS i n t he cont ext

of t hi s retal i at i on case, and not j ust hi s r el at i onshi p wi t h t he

gover nment i n t he cont ext of a pot ent i al t ax compl i cat i on. Cf .


24/56

- 24 -

At l . Li mousi ne, I nc. v. N. L. R. B. , 243 F. 3d 711, 715- 18 ( 3d Ci r .

2001) ( r ej ect i ng ar gument t hat t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d

must base i t s backpay determi nat i on on t he t i ps empl oyees r eport ed

on i ncome tax r etur ns and not t he hi gher amount of t i ps cl ai med i n

t est i mony because the har m of di scr i mi nat i on and t he har m of t ax

avoi dance ar e di st i nct and can each be remedi ed i n separate

pr ocedur es) . 7 And, even assumi ng Travers di d harm FSS by

under - r epor t i ng hi s t i ps, FSS does not ci t e evi dence i ndi cat i ng

t he magni t ude or nat ur e of t hat har m. Accor di ngl y, we decl i ne t o

di st ur b t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s wei ghi ng of t he equi t i es. We t hus

concl ude t he Di st r i ct Cour t acted wel l wi t hi n i t s di scret i on i n

r ej ect i ng t he uncl ean- hands ar gument .

FSS next argues t hat t he backpay damages shoul d be

el i mi nat ed under t he "af t er - acqui r ed evi dence doct r i ne, " whi ch we

have descr i bed as cut t i ng of f damages " at t he t i me that t he

def endant di scover s evi dence t hat woul d have l ed i t t o f i r e t he

pl ai nt i f f on l egi t i mat e gr ounds. " J ohnson v. Spencer Press of

7 FSS ci t es Huber t v. Consol i dat ed Medi cal Labor at or i es, 716N. E. 2d 329 ( I l l . App. Ct . 1999) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t heuncl ean- hands def ense shoul d pr event Traver s f r om r ecover i ng backpay her e. But i n Huber t , t he pl ai nt i f f had engaged i n wr ongdoi ngt hat was t he basi s f or her cl ai m of havi ng engaged i n pr ot ect edconduct f or whi ch, i n r et al i at i on, her empl oyer al l egedl y f i r edher . I d. at 335. The cour t decl i ned t o al l ow t he pl ai nt i f f t or ecover " f r om t he def endant s based on ci r cumst ances di r ect l yar i si ng f r omher own mi sconduct . " I d. But Tr aver s' s par t i ci pat i oni n t he cl ass act i on, and not hi s under - r epor t i ng of t i ps t o FSS,i s t he pr ot ect ed conduct f or whi ch a j ur y hel d FSS r et al i at ed.Thus, hi s wr ongdoi ng i s not t he basi s f or FSS' s l i abi l i t y.


25/56

- 25 -

Mai ne, I nc. , 364 F. 3d 368, 382 n. 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( emphasi s

added) ; see al so Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d v. Ci vi l Ser v. Comm' n, 14

N. E. 3d 241, 249 n. 14 ( Mass. 2014) ( descr i bi ng t he same doct r i ne i n

st at e l aw) . But FSS' s t i p- r epor t i ng pol i cy st at ed onl y t hat

f ai l ur e t o f i l e a t i p- r epor t i ng sheet each pay per i od "may" l ead

t o t er mi nat i on. Ther e was no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat a skycap

had been t er mi nat ed f or f ai l ur e t o r epor t t i ps, much l ess any

evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat Tr aver s' s i nf r act i ons woul d have l ed t o

t er mi nat i on. We t hus concl ude t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not

abuse i t s di scr et i on i n wi t hhol di ng t hi s equi t abl e r emedy. See

Mur phy, 22 F. 3d at 1189 ( r evi ewi ng wi t hhol di ng of equi t abl e def ense

f or abuse of di scr et i on) ; see al so McKennon v. Nashvi l l e Banner

Pub. Co. , 513 U. S. 352, 360 ( 1995) ( af t er - acqui r ed evi dence i s an

equi t abl e doct r i ne) .

Fi nal l y, FSS ar gues t hat t he backpay award of $90, 000

i s unsuppor t ed by the evi dence i f we cr edi t t he amount of t i ps

Tr avers r epor t ed t o FSS - - somet i mes j ust $40 a day - - r at her t han

t he much hi gher amount s of $200 to $250 a day that he t est i f i ed t o

r ecei vi ng. But FSS ci t es no aut hor i t y f or i t s asser t i on t hat a

j ury, i n maki ng t he l oss cal cul at i on, coul d not r el y on Tr avers' s

t est i mony about what he had l ost and t hat a j ur y was r equi r ed

i nst ead t o r el y onl y on what Tr aver s r epor t ed i n t er ms of t i p

i ncome. Thus, because evi dence t hat t he j ur y was ent i t l ed t o

cr edi t suppor t ed t he backpay awar d - - as t he j ur y coul d have f ound


26/56

- 26 -

t hat Tr aver s di d not r epor t t he f ul l ext ent of hi s t i p i ncome - - we

see no basi s f or r ever sal . See Dopp v. Pr i t zker , 38 F. 3d 1239,

1249 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( "[ A] r evi ewi ng cour t wi l l not t i nker wi t h

t he j ury' s assessment of money damages [ even f or economi c har ms]

as l ong as i t does not f al l out si de t he br oad uni ver se of

t heor et i cal l y possi bl e awar ds t hat can be sai d t o be suppor t ed by

t he evi dence. " ) ; Beaupr e v. Cl i f f Smi t h & Associ at es, 738 N. E. 2d

753, 768 (Mass. App. Ct . 2000) ( uphol di ng backpay award as

support ed by suf f i ci ent evi dence where t he award was support ed by

pl ai nt i f f t est i mony about di f f er ence i n ear ni ngs at ol d j ob and

new j ob and t i me el apsed si nce t er mi nat i on) ; cf . At l . Li mousi ne,

243 F. 3d at 715- 17 ( concl udi ng t hat t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons

Boar d i s not bound by under - r epor t ed t i p amount i n cal cul at i ng

l ost t i p i ncome) .

D.

FSS cont est s t he amount of damages or dered f or emot i onal

di st r ess as wel l . The j ur y awar ded $400, 000, but t he Di st r i ct

Cour t t hen or der ed r emi t t i t ur t o $50, 000 or a new t r i al , and

Tr avers accept ed t he r emi t t i t ur and t hus t he $50, 000 amount . FSS

ar gues, however , t hat we must knock down t hi s awar d st i l l l ower t o

$10, 000.

Our r evi ew of t he awar d t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t chose i n

or der i ng r emi t t i t ur i s hi ghl y def er ent i al . I n r evi ewi ng a di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on t o set asi de a ver di ct as excessi ve, we


27/56

- 27 -

r ever se onl y f or an abuse of di scret i on. Gasper i ni v. Ct r . f or

Humani t i es, I nc. , 518 U. S. 415, 435 ( 1996) ; Br owni ng- Fer r i s I ndus.

of Ver mont , I nc. v. Kel co Di sposal , I nc. , 492 U. S. 257, 279 ( 1989) .

"Transl at i ng l egal damage i nt o money damages i s a mat t er

' pecul i ar l y wi t hi n a j ur y' s ken, ' especi al l y i n cases i nvol vi ng

i nt angi bl e, non- economi c l osses, " and " [ w] e wi l l f i nd an abuse of

di scret i on onl y i f t he j ur y' s ver di ct exceeds ' any r at i onal

appr ai sal or est i mate of t he damages t hat coul d be based on t he

evi dence bef or e t he j ur y. ' " Tr ul l v. Vol kswagen of Am. , I nc. , 320

F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( quot i ng Smi t h v. Kmar t Cor p. , 177 F. 3d

19, 2930 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) .

And where, as here, t he def endant seeks t o pr une t he

j ury awar d f ur t her af t er " t he t r i al cour t al r eady has i nvoked i t s

di scret i on i n gr ant i ng a r emi t t i t ur , t he scope of r evi ew i s even

nar r ower t han usual . " Sanchez v. Puer t o Ri co Oi l Co. , 37 F. 3d

712, 724 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( or i gi nal al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng

Rui z v. Gonzal ez Car abal l o, 929 F. 2d 31, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) .

"Once a ver di ct has been t r i mmed and r eshaped at t he hands of t he

t r i al j udge, an assaul t on t he remai ni ng amount cal l s upon t he

cour t of appeal s not mer el y t o gr ade the essay, but t o gr ade t he

t eacher ' s gr adi ng of t he essay. " I d. ( or i gi nal al t er at i ons

omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Rui z, 929 F. 2d at 34) . Wi t h t hat i n mi nd, when

we r evi ew an accept ed or der of r emi t t i t ur f or excessi veness,

"[ f ] ur t her r el i ef i s not war r ant ed unl ess t he awar d, as r emi t t ed,


28/56

- 28 -

r emai ns ' so ext r avagant as t o shock the appel l at e consci ence. ' "

Tr ai nor v. HEI Hospi t al i t y, LLC, 699 F. 3d 19, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( appl yi ng t hi s st andar d of r evi ew t o bot h st at e and f eder al

cl ai ms) .

I n cont endi ng that t he evi dence di d not suppor t even t he

r educed emot i onal - di st r ess damages award, FSS r el i es on t he

Massachuset t s st andar d f or emot i onal - di st r ess awar ds. See

St onehi l l Col l ege v. Mass. Comm' n Agai nst Di scr i mi nat i on, 808

N. E. 2d 205, 225 (Mass. 2004) ( st at i ng t hat emot i onal - di st r ess

awar ds " shoul d be f ai r and r easonabl e, and pr opor t i onat e t o t he

di st r ess suf f er ed" and i dent i f yi ng r el evant f actor s i n f ashi oni ng

an award such as "( 1) t he natur e and charact er of t he al l eged harm;

( 2) t he sever i t y of t he har m; ( 3) t he l engt h of t i me t he

compl ai nant has suf f er ed and r easonabl y expect s t o suf f er ; and ( 4)

whether t he compl ai nant has at t empt ed t o mi t i gate t he harm") . And

i n ar gui ng t hat f ur t her r emi t t i t ur i s r equi r ed under t hi s st andar d,

FSS r el i es on Franceschi v. Hospi t al Gener al San Car l os, I nc. , 420

F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

But Franceschi hel d onl y t hat a di st r i ct cour t di d not

abuse i t s di scr et i on when i t or der ed r emi t t i t ur of emot i onal -

di st r ess damages f r om $200, 000 t o $10, 000 i n a gar den- var i et y

commerci al di sput e. Fr anceschi says nothi ng about whether a

di st r i ct cour t abuses i t s di scret i on i n or der i ng r emi t t i t ur down

t o $50, 000, but not l ess, i n a case of t hi s sor t .


29/56

- 29 -

Here, t here was t est i mony about t he emot i onal i mpact on

Tr avers of FSS' s f i r i ng hi m f or hi s ef f or t s t o r ecover i n cour t

f or ot her al l eged wr ongs of FSS. Speci f i cal l y, Tr aver s t est i f i ed

t hat when he was event ual l y f i r ed " [ i ] t hur t a l ot " because he

" l oved t hat j ob, " and t hat he "put i n a l ot of t i me" and "pr i ded

[ hi m] sel f i n . . . wor ki ng t her e, and f or so l ong, t oo. " He

f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat , despi t e hi s l ack of educat i on and l ow-

i ncome upbr i ngi ng, t hi s j ob al l owed hi m t o "suppor t [ hi s]

ki ds" - - and t hat when he l ost t he j ob " i t was embar r ass i ng" and

"har d t o expl ai n" t o peopl e, such as hi s si ck mot her . 8

Thus, Tr avers t est i f i ed t hat , af t er t he f i r i ng, he was

"depr essed, " "di dn' t want t o take [ hi s] son out " or "do any of t he

t hi ngs [ he] usual l y di d, " and "di dn' t want t o get up i n t he mor ni ng

some days. " He al so t est i f i ed t hat t he st r ess of t r yi ng t o pi ck

up mor e shi f t s at ot her j obs "was a l i t t l e bi t har d[ ] on [ hi s]

f ami l y l i f e, " and t hat i t especi al l y l ed t o mor e f i ght s wi t h hi s

gi r l f r i end. And, accor di ng t o Tr aver s' s gi r l f r i end, t hi s

8 Tr aver s di d t est i f y t hat hi s mot her had Al zhei mer ' s and t hathe was t aki ng car e of her dur i ng t hi s t i me. FSS ar gues t hi s showsTr avers' s depress i on was caused by ci r cumst ances i ndependent ofhi s t er mi nat i on. But t he t est i mony does not compel t hatconcl usi on. The t est i mony woul d suppor t a r easonabl e j ur y' sconcl usi on t hat Tr aver s' s depr essi on r esul t ed pr i mar i l y f r ombei ngf i r ed. Most of t he t est i mony about t he mani f est at i ons of hi sdepr essi on concer ned t he ef f ect l osi ng hi s j ob had on hi m.


30/56

- 30 -

depr essed mood per si st ed f or "a coupl e of mont hs, t hr ee, f our ,

f i ve mont hs. "9

As a resul t of t hi s t est i mony, Franceschi pr ovi des no

basi s f or f i ndi ng er r or i n t hi s case. Nor does t he ot her case on

whi ch FSS pl aces great wei ght , DeRoche v. Massachuset t s Commi ss i on

Agai nst Di scr i mi nat i on, 848 N. E. 2d 1197, 1203 ( Mass. 2006) . Ther e,

t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t f ound t he evi dence t o be i nsuf f i ci ent

t o support a $50, 000 award f or emot i onal di st r ess. But t he Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t expl ai ned i n DeRoche t hat t he pl ai nt i f f i n t hat

case had not i nt r oduced evi dence l i nki ng hi s emot i onal di st r ess t o

t he r et al i at or y act and t hat "[ t ] her e was no t est i mony . . . t he

pl ai nt i f f was compel l ed t o cur t ai l hi s l i f e acti vi t i es i n any way

due t o st r ess f r om t he . . . r et al i at or y acti on. " I d. Her e, by

cont r ast , Tr aver s di d t est i f y that hi s emot i onal di st r ess st emmed

f r om t he r et al i at or y f i r i ng. Tr aver s and hi s gi r l f r i end al so

t est i f i ed about t he i mpact hi s emot i onal di st r ess had on hi s f ami l y

and dai l y acti vi t i es, i ncl udi ng hi s rel at i onshi p wi t h hi s

gi r l f r i end and hi s chi l d and hi s abi l i t y t o get out of bed.

9 Tr aver s ' s gi r l f r i end al so t est i f i ed t hat Tr aver s' st er mi nat i on "i mpact [ ed] hi mver y dr amat i cal l y": he used t o "l i ke[ ]t o do t hi ngs wi t h [ hi s f ami l y] , " but af t er hi s t er mi nat i on"ever ythi ng change[ d] . " He "di dn' t enj oy not hi ng wi t h [ t he f ami l y]anymore" and became "nast y" such t hat she had t o "shut t he doorand l eave hi mal one. " And, t he gi r l f r i end t est i f i ed, Tr aver s wentf r om al ways pl ayi ng wi t h hi s son af t er wor k t o not want i ng t o evenget out of bed.


31/56

- 31 -

I n sum, FSS ci t es no pr ecedent t hat l eads us t o concl ude

t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s di scr et i on by knocki ng t he awar d

down onl y as f ar as i t di d, and not st i l l f ur t her . And whi l e t he

evi dence of emot i onal di st r ess was not par t i cul ar l y st r ong i n t hi s

case, 10 i t was not so l acki ng t hat t he r educed award of $50, 000

shocks t he appel l at e consci ence. See Trai nor , 699 F. 3d at 32.

Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he emot i onal - di st r ess damages awar d set

f or t h i n t he or der of r emi t t i t ur and accept ed by Tr aver s.

E.

The l ast of FSS' s chal l enges concer ns t he Di st r i ct Cour t

or der t hat gr ant ed Traver s $176, 185 i n at t or ney' s f ees and

$7, 398. 45 i n cost s. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 150. FSS

ar gues f or a f ee r educt i on because Tr aver s' s at t or ney al l egedl y

engaged i n mi sconduct dur i ng t he t r i al .

FSS r i ght l y obser ves t hat "[ i ] t i s wel l set t l ed i n t hi s

ci r cui t t hat t he di st r i ct cour t has t he dut y and r esponsi bi l i t y t o

super vi se t he conduct of at t or neys who appear bef or e i t , and

10 FSS suppor t s i t s ar gument f or f ur t her r emi t t i t ur by not i ngt hat Traver s present ed no exper t t est i mony regar di ng hi s emot i onaldi st r ess. But "exper t t est i mony . . . i s usef ul but not essent i alt o support an award of emot i onal di st r ess damages. " Bost on Pub.Heal t h Comm' n v. Mass. Comm' n Agai nst Di scr i mi nat i on, 854 N. E. 2d111, 117 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2006) ; see al so Mol l oy v. Bl anchar d, 115F. 3d 86, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( concl udi ng, f or f eder al cl ai m, t hatexper t t est i mony on emot i onal di st r ess i s not r equi r ed wher e l ayt est i mony i s " wi t hi n t he common knowl edge and exper i ence of t hel ayper son") . And her e t he l ack of exper t t est i mony does not l eadus t o concl ude t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s di scret i on i ndecl i ni ng t o or der f ur t her r emi t t i t ur .


32/56

- 32 -

t hat . . . [ d] eni al of at t or neys' f ees may be a pr oper sanct i on"

f or at t or ney mi sconduct . Cul ebr as Ent er s. Cor p. v. Ri ver a- Ri os,

846 F. 2d 94, 97 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ; see al so Wong v. Luu, 34 N. E. 3d

35, 45 ( Mass. 2015) ( hol di ng t hat " [ t ] he i nher ent power s necessar y

t o pr eser ve t he cour t ' s aut hor i t y t o accompl i sh j ust i ce i ncl ude

t he power t o sanct i on an at t or ney" f or mi sconduct by assessi ng

f ees) . But we r evi ew "t he di st r i ct cour t ' s [ at t or ney conduct ]

super vi sory r ul i ngs under an ' abuse of di scr et i on' st andar d" when

det er mi ni ng whet her f ees shoul d be of f set f or at t or ney mi sconduct ,

Cul ebr as Ent er s. Cor p. , 846 F. 2d at 97; see al so Wong, 34 N. E. 3d

at 46, and we concl ude t hat , under t hi s def er ent i al st andar d, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n concl udi ng t hat

t her e was no at t or ney mi sconduct t hat r equi r ed a reduct i on of t he

at t or ney' s f ees awar d.

The f i r st of t he t hree al l eged exampl es of at t or ney

mi sconduct t hat FSS i dent i f i es as a basi s f or r educi ng t he awar d

on appeal concer ns t he cl osi ng ar gument s by Tr aver s' s counsel .

FSS cont ends she i nappr opr i at el y ar gued t hat t he j ur y shoul d dr aw

a negat i ve i nf er ence f r om FSS' s f ai l ur e t o l ocat e or subpoena t he

woman who compl ai ned t hat Traver s sol i ci t ed a t i p f r om her . But

t he Di st r i ct Cour t char act er i zed t hese st at ement s as t ypi cal over -

zeal ousness - - not bad- f ai t h act s. And we can see no r eason t o

concl ude t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n so

f i ndi ng.


33/56

- 33 -

FSS al so poi nt s t o Tr aver s' s t est i mony about Ni chol s i n

seeki ng t o r educe t he awar d. FSS cont ends t hat Traver s' s counsel

knew t he t est i mony was i nadmi ss i bl e but sought t o admi t i t anyway.

But t he Di st r i ct Cour t di sagr eed, and we do not t hi nk t he Di st r i ct

Cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n so deci di ng. I n f act , t he Di st r i ct

Cour t i t sel f appear ed t o vi ew t he evi dent i ar y i ssue as cl ose, as

i t i ni t i al l y decl i ned t o st r i ke t he t est i mony bef or e t hen r eachi ng

t he opposi t e concl usi on af t er t r i al .

Fi nal l y, FSS poi nt s t o one aspect of Tr aver s' s counsel ' s

l i ne of quest i oni ng of Nabi l Agba, t he f or mer FSS skycap

supervi sor . Travers' s counsel asked Agba whether he had ever heard

t hat Li sa Var ot si s, t he gener al manager i n Bost on, was consi der i ng

gi vi ng Tr aver s hi s j ob back. FSS ar gues t hat Tr aver s' s counsel

was t hus suggest i ng t o t he j ur y t hat FSS had made a set t l ement

of f er , even t hough Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 408( a) r est r i ct s t he

admi ssi on of set t l ement of f er s. But whi l e t he Di st r i ct Cour t

st r uck cer t ai n par t s of t he test i mony Agba pr ovi ded i n r esponse t o

t hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng, t he Di st r i ct Cour t al so r ul ed t hat Rul e

408( a) was besi de t he poi nt . The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat t her e

was no evi dence that Var ot si s ever sent or saw a set t l ement of f er ,

and t hus no gr ound f or concl udi ng t hat t he counsel was seeki ng t o

do an end r un around t he r ul e by aski ng t he quest i ons she di d.

FSS poi nt s t o not hi ng t hat shows t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s


34/56

- 34 -

di scr et i on i n so f i ndi ng and t hus t o not hi ng t hat shows counsel

di d engage i n mi sconduct i n seeki ng to admi t t he t est i mony.

For t hese r easons, we af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

deci si on not t o r educe or el i mi nat e t he at t or ney' s f ee awar d f or

al l eged at t or ney mi sconduct . 11

III.

We now t ur n t o Traver s' s cross- appeal . Traver s pr esent s

t hr ee chal l enges to t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s handl i ng of t he case. He

ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed f i r st i n ent i r el y el i mi nat i ng

and not t r ebl i ng f r ont - pay damages, next i n f ai l i ng t o t r ebl e t he

$50, 000 emot i onal - di st r ess awar d, and f i nal l y i n denyi ng

pr ej udgment i nt er est . But bef or e t aki ng up each cont ent i on, we

note t hat FSS argues t hat we may not r evi ew any of t hem. And t hat

i s because FSS cont ends t hat Tr aver s accept ed t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

of f er of r emi t t i t ur i n or der t o avoi d a new t r i al .

I n maki ng t hi s t hr eshol d ar gument , FSS poi nt s t o t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Donovan v. Penn Shi ppi ng Co. , I nc. , 429

U. S. 648, 649 ( 1977) , whi ch hel d t hat "a pl ai nt i f f cannot appeal

t he pr opr i et y of a r emi t t i t ur or der t o whi ch he has agr eed. " But

11 FSS al so argues t he f ees and cost s award shoul d be reducedt o zer o because Tr aver s under - r epor t ed hi s t i ps t o FSS dur i ng hi sempl oyment . But we agr ee wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t , whi ch concl udedt hat " [ w] hi l e Tr aver s may have cr eat ed f ut ur e compl i cat i ons f orhi msel f wi t h t he I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce . . . , t her e i s noaut hor i t y t hat I amawar e of ( and none i s ci t ed) t hat woul d puni sht he l awyer f or t he t ax def al cat i ons of her cl i ent i n a case t hathad not hi ng t o do wi t h t ax i ssues . . . . "


35/56

- 35 -

as we wi l l expl ai n i n t he cour se of addr essi ng Tr aver s' s

chal l enges, each one may be r esol ved ei t her i ndependent l y of , or

not wi t hst andi ng t he appl i cat i on of , t he Donovan r ul e.

A.

Tr avers ar gues f i r st t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on when i t r ul ed t hat t he j ur y' s $450, 000 f r ont - pay awar d

was " based whol l y on specul at i on" and t hus must be r ej ect ed i n i t s

ent i r et y. Bef or e addr essi ng t he mer i t s of t hat cont ent i on, t hough,

we must addr ess FSS' s argument t hat Travers' s accept ance of

r emi t t i t ur st ands i n t he way.

The r eason t hat FSS i s wr ong on t hi s poi nt i s si mpl e.

Remi t t i t ur must be accept ed i n or der t o be ef f ect i ve. See Mej i as-

Qui r os v. Maxxam Pr op. Cor p. , 108 F. 3d 425, 429 ( 1st Ci r . 1997)

( r emandi ng " f or a new t r i al on medi cal cost s unl ess Mej as accept s

a r emi t t i t ur " ) . But t he r ecor d r eveal s t hat Tr aver s never accept ed

t he el i mi nat i on of t he f r ont - pay awar d and t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t

t hen separ at el y rej ect ed t he f r ont - pay awar d as a mat t er of l aw

because i t was t oo specul at i ve.

Speci f i cal l y, i n addr essi ng FSS' s mot i on f or a new

t r i al , t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d r ul e t hat i t woul d gr ant t he mot i on

i f t he "pl ai nt i f f r ej ect[ s] a r emi t t i t ur of damages. " The Di st r i ct

Cour t t hen l i st ed, al ongsi de a r educt i on i n emot i onal - di st r ess

damages, t he compl ete el i mi nat i on of f r ont - pay damages. Travers

r esponded by accept i ng r emi t t i t ur . But i n doi ng so, Traver s


36/56

- 36 -

cl ear l y accept ed the reduct i on of t he emot i onal - di st r ess damages

but char act er i zed t he el i mi nat i on of f r ont pay as a par t i al

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw t hat Tr avers expr essl y nei t her accept ed

nor r ej ect ed. See Docket Ent r y No. 174. Then, i n t he cour se of

denyi ng FSS' s mot i on f or r econsi der at i on, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

announced t hat i t st ood by "i t s deci si on t o el i mi nat e t he

f r ont [ - ] pay awar d of $450, 000 al t oget her and t o or der a r emi t t i t ur

of t he $400, 000 award of emot i onal - di st r ess damages t o $50, 000

( whi ch pl ai nt i f f has accept ed) . " Docket Ent r y No. 184 at n. 1.

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus appar ent l y acknowl edged t hat Tr avers had

accept ed r emi t t i t ur as t o t he emot i onal - di st r ess damages al one and

t hat t he cour t was ent er i ng a separ at e j udgment r ej ect i ng t he

f r ont - pay awar d as a mat t er of l aw.

Agai nst t hi s backgr ound, we const r ue t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s el i mi nat i on of f r ont - pay damages as a par t i al j udgment as

a mat t er of l aw under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Procedur e 50. See de

J esus v. Banco Popul ar de Puer t o Ri co, 918 F. 2d 232, 235 ( 1st Ci r .

1990) ( "I f t he cour t bel i eved t hat t he j ur y' s ver di ct was

unsupport ed by t he evi dence, i t coul d have gr ant ed j udgment

not wi t hst andi ng t he ver di ct t o def endant . I f i t bel i eved t hat t he

ver di ct was suppor t abl e, but t hat t he j ur y' s awar d of damages was

gr ossl y excessi ve, i t coul d have f i xed a r emi t t i t ur amount . ") ; see

al so Hi l l v. Mar shal l , 962 F. 2d 1209, 1217 ( 6t h Ci r . 1992) . And

we revi ew a gr ant of j udgment as a mat t er of l aw de novo and af f i r m


37/56

- 37 -

onl y i f , t aki ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

non- movi ng par t y, no r easonabl e j ur y woul d concl ude t hat t her e

coul d be a f r ont - pay awar d i n t hi s case. See I r vi ne v. Mur ad Ski n

Resear ch Labs. , I nc. , 194 F. 3d 313, 316 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( di scussi ng

t he Rul e 50 st andar d) .

Under bot h st at e and f eder al l aw, f r ont - pay awar ds, l i ke

al l damages awards, "may not be determi ned by specul at i on or guess,

must be causal l y rel at ed t o t he def endant ' s wr ongdoi ng, and . . .

shoul d not . . . ma[ k] e [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] mor e t han whol e. " Conway

v. El ect r o Swi t ch Cor p. , 523 N. E. 2d 255, 257 ( Mass. 1988)

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Power s v. Gr i nnel l Cor p. , 915 F. 2d

34, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( f r ont - pay awar d shoul d not be " t oo

specul at i ve") . St i l l , some l evel of uncer t ai nt y r egar di ng t he

f ut ur e i s i nevi t abl e and so "[ m] er e uncer t ai nt y" does not bar

f r ont - pay damages. Conway, 523 N. E. 2d at 257; see al so Trai nor v.

HEI Hospi t al i t y, LLC, 699 F. 3d 19, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( obser vi ng

t hat "cr af t i ng a f r ont pay awar d necessar i l y ent ai l s some degr ee

of [ per mi ssi bl e] specul at i on") . Fi nal l y, f r ont - pay damages, as an

award f or f ut ur e damages, "must be reduced t o pr esent val ue" t o

account f or t he di f f er ence i n t he val ue of money i n t he f ut ur e and

t he val ue of money t oday. Conway, 523 N. E. 2d at 257 n. 3; see al so

Scar f o v. Cabl et r on Sys. , I nc. , 54 F. 3d 931, 961 ( 1st Ci r . 1995)

( not i ng t hat " i n cal cul at i ng damages f or f r ont pay, [ an exper t ]

cor r ect l y chose t o di scount t he amount s r epr esent i ng t he


38/56

- 38 -

pl ai nt i f f s' f ut ur e wages at an appr opr i at e i nt er est r at e i n or der

t o det er mi ne t he pr esent val ue of t he f ut ur e st r eam of i ncome t o

whi ch each pl ai nt i f f woul d have been ent i t l ed") .

Tr avers def ends t he $450, 000 j ury awar d by mul t i pl yi ng

t went y year s of f ut ure empl oyment 12 by $25, 000 i n l ost t i ps per

year 13 and t hen subt r act i ng $50, 000 t o di scount t hose l ost f ut ur e

12 Tr aver s ar r i ves at t hi s t went y- year f i gur e appar ent l y ont he basi s of hi s t est i mony t hat , i f he had not been f i r ed, hepl anned on st ayi ng " [ a]nother 20 years. You know, skycaps work

f or 20, 30, 40 year s at t he cur b. I don' t see me l eavi ng. I t wasa good j ob, " and on t he t est i mony of ot her skycaps who t est i f i edt hey had been skycaps f or year s, i ncl udi ng one who test i f i ed t hathe had been a skycap f or t went y- ni ne year s by t he t i me of t r i al .

13 Travers bases t hi s number on hi s t est i mony that he t ook anew skycap j ob, af t er bei ng f i r ed by FSS. He t est i f i ed t hat t hatj ob r esul t ed i n about $100 l ess i n t i ps per shi f t and t wo f ewershi f t s per week, f or a l oss of at l east $500 per week over a f i f t y-week wor k year . And t he Di st r i ct Cour t accept ed t hat Traver s hadest i mated i n hi s t est i mony that he woul d l ose about $25, 000 peryear as a r esul t of bei ng f i r ed.

We not e t hat Tr aver s al so test i f i ed t hat he was abl e t osomewhat i ncr ease hi s hour s and hour l y wage at yet another j obaf t er bei ng f i r ed by FSS. The i ncr ease i n hour s, however , wasonl y t empor ar y, and at t he t i me of t r i al Tr aver s t est i f i ed t hat hewas worki ng wi t hi n t he same r ange of hour s per week ( 18 t o 20) ont hi s ot her j ob as he was bef or e bei ng f i r ed ( 15 t o 20) , wi t h amodest i ncrease i n hi s hour l y r at e ( f r om $17 t o $20. 75) . I ndef endi ng agai nst Tr aver s' s cr oss- appeal on t he f r ont - pay i ssue,FSS does not ar gue that Tr aver s' s sl i ght l y i ncr eased ear ni ngs f r omt hi s ot her j ob under mi ne the est i mat i on of $25, 000 i n l osses peryear or cont r i but e t o t he specul at i ve nat ur e of t he or i gi nal f r ont -pay awar d. And, i n any event , we not e t hat a cal cul at i on usi ngTr avers' s hi ghest est i mat i on of hi s hour s per week at t hi s j obbef or e bei ng f i r ed ( 20) and hi s l owest est i mat i on of hi s hour s perweek at t he same j ob af t er FSS f i r ed hi m ( 18) , even af t eraccount i ng f or t he i ncr ease i n hour l y wages, shows onl y a modesti mpact of $1, 675 on hi s year l y ear ni ngs, assumi ng a f i f t y- weekwor k year . Gi ven t hat Tr aver s' s l oss est i mat i on of $25, 000 peryear was based on t he l ower end of t he t i ps per day t hat Traversest i mated ear ni ng and di d not i ncl ude hi s $2. 63 hour l y wage, we


39/56

- 39 -

ear ni ngs t o pr esent val ue. We agr ee wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t t hat

awar di ng t he f ul l pr oj ect ed l oss f or t he f ul l t went y- year t er m

Tr avers asser t ed he want ed t o wor k woul d go beyond accept abl e

uncer t ai nt y and const i t ut e unsuppor t ed specul at i on.

The Supreme J udi ci al Cour t has uphel d l ar ger awar ds of

f r ont pay over si mi l ar l y l ong t i me hor i zons, but i t has done so i n

cases i nvol vi ng consi der abl y mor e det ai l about t he l i kel i hood of

f ut ur e ear ni ngs t han was est abl i shed her e. See, e. g. , Haddad v.

Wal - Mar t St or es, I nc. , 914 N. E. 2d 59, 69- 72 ( Mass. 2009) ( uphol di ng

$733, 307 award f or ni neteen years of f r ont pay, where expert

t est i f i ed about wage di f f er ence bet ween ol d and new j obs,

di f f i cul t y f i ndi ng a new j ob wi t h a si mi l ar sal ar y t o t he ol d j ob,

l i kel y t enur e at empl oyer based on excel l ent wor k r evi ews,

r emai ni ng t i me unt i l r et i r ement , and pr esent - val ue di scount

cal cul at i ons) ; see al so Kel l ey v. Ai r bor ne Frei ght Cor p. , 140 F. 3d

335, 355- 56 (1st Ci r . 1998) ( uphol di ng under Massachuset t s l aw a

$1 mi l l i on, f our t een- year f r ont - pay awar d, a "hot l y cont est ed

i ssue at t r i al , " based on pl ai nt i f f ' s asser t i on he woul d wor k unt i l

si xt y- f i ve, t he si x- year pr oxi mi t y t o hi s bei ng f ul l y vest ed i n

pensi on pl an, and exper t evi dence f r om bot h si des r egar di ng

di f f i cul t y f i ndi ng a bet t er j ob) . I n f act, Tr aver s does not

concl ude t hat ( at l east absent any ar gument t o t he cont r ar y)what ever i mpact Traver s' s i ncr eased ear ni ngs at hi s second j ob haddoes not af f ect our anal ysi s her e.


40/56

- 40 -

i dent i f y a si ngl e Massachuset t s case t hat suppor t s uphol di ng a

$450, 000 award over a twent y- year t i me hor i zon based onl y on t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s t est i mony t hat he desi r ed t o wor k anot her t went y year s,

t hat ot her s i n t hat posi t i on at t he company had si mi l ar l y l ong

t enur es, and hi s test i mony about cur r ent l ost i ncome. Tr aver s

ci t es Weber v. Communi t y Teamwork, I nc. , 752 N. E. 2d 700 (Mass.

2001) , as an exampl e of t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t uphol di ng a

l ar ge f r ont - pay award based on a f i f t een- year per i od of assumed

cont i nued empl oyment . But t her e, t he cour t expr essl y r eserved

j udgment on t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence under l yi ng t hat awar d.

I d. at 718. Accor di ngl y, we agr ee wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t t hat

t he $450, 000 f r ont - pay award was t oo specul at i ve t o st and. 14

But t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not mer el y rej ect a $450, 000

f r ont - pay awar d. The Di st r i ct Cour t or der ed t he compl et e

el i mi nat i on of f r ont - pay damages, not wi t hst andi ng the evi dence of

t he l osses Traver s t est i f i ed t hat he woul d sust ai n goi ng f or war d

and not wi t hst andi ng hi s t est i mony that he had i nt ended t o st ay i n

14 Traver s ci t es bot h f eder al and st at e cases f or t he gener alst andard of how specul at i ve a j ur y award may be bef ore bei ng st r uckas a mat t er of l aw under bot h f eder al and st at e l aw. But he r el i espr i mar i l y on Massachuset t s cases - - whi l e ci t i ng some non-Massachuset t s st at e cases as per suasi ve aut hor i t y - - i n ar gui ngt hat t he appl i cat i on of t hat st andar d i n t hi s case shoul d haver esul t ed i n l eavi ng t he j ur y' s f r ont - pay awar d unchanged.Accor di ngl y, we have consi der ed onl y Massachuset t s l aw i nconcl udi ng t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t was war r ant ed i n r ej ect i ng asa mat t er of l aw t he f ul l amount of t he f r ont - pay awar d i n t hi scase.


41/56

- 41 -

hi s j ob at FSS had he not been f i r ed. That evi dence, however , was

suf f i ci ent t o per mi t a r easonabl e j ur y to awar d some f r ont - pay

damages gr eat er t han zer o. See Handr ahan v. Red Roof I nns, I nc. ,

680 N. E. 2d 568, 577 ( Mass. App. Ct . 1997) ( f i ndi ng excessi ve a

$487, 800 f r ont - pay awar d over t hi r t y year s based on sel f - r epor t ed

i nt ent i on of empl oyee but r emandi ng f or r ecomput at i on, not

el i mi nat i on, of f r ont pay) ; see al so Tr ai nor , 699 F. 3d at 31

( af f i r mi ng f r ont - pay awar d, at l east par t i al l y under f eder al l aw,

based on est i mat i on of l oss and pl ai nt i f f ' s t est i mony t hat he woul d

cont i nue t o wor k f or t hr ee year s) . Accor di ngl y, we vacat e t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s or der el i mi nat i ng t he j ur y' s f r ont - pay awar d and

r emand f or t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o consi der t he i ssue anew.

B.

Tr avers next cont ends t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n

not t r ebl i ng t he r emi t t ed emot i onal - di st r ess damages awar d of

$50, 000 on t he basi s of a Massachuset t s s t at ut e. 15 See Mass. Gen.

Laws ch. 149, 150. That st at ut e pr ovi des t hat an empl oyee, l i ke

Tr avers, may br i ng a sui t " f or any damages i ncur r ed, and f or any

15 The damages Travers seeks t o t r ebl e under st ate l aw arebased on both f ederal and st ate cl ai ms and the damages were notapport i oned between t hem. But " [ w] hen f ederal and st ate cl ai msover l ap, t he pl ai nt i f f may choose t o be awarded damages based onst at e l aw i f t hat l aw of f er s a mor e gener ous out come t han f eder all aw, " Tobi n v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns. Co. , 553 F. 3d 121, 146 ( 1st Ci r .2009) . FSS makes no argument chal l engi ng Travers' s r i ght t o seekt r ebl i ng under st at e l aw not wi t hst andi ng t hat t he damages r el ypar t i al l y on a f eder al cl ai m.


42/56

- 42 -

l ost wages and ot her benef i t s" and t hat , i f t he pl ai nt i f f pr evai l s,

t he pl ai nt i f f "shal l be awar ded t r ebl e damages, as l i qui dat ed

damages, f or any l ost wages and ot her benef i t s. " I d. Tr aver s

cont ends t hat t hi s st at ut e appl i es t o the emot i onal - di st r ess

damages because, al t hough he acknowl edges t hat t hey ar e not " l ost

wages, " damages compensat i ng f or emot i onal di st r ess ar e an "other

benef i t [ ] " of empl oyment .

We need not deci de whether , as FSS cont ends, t hat - - i n

consequence of Donovan - - Traver s' s accept ance of r emi t t i t ur

pr ecl udes hi m f r om seeki ng t he t r ebl i ng of t hese damages. And

t hat i s because we f i nd no basi s f or concl udi ng t hat , under

Massachuset t s General Laws ch. 149, 150, payment of damages f or

emot i onal di st r ess i s a "benef i t [ ] " of empl oyment .

Tr avers ci t es no case l aw or l egi sl at i ve hi st or y

i ndi cat i ng t hat t he Massachuset t s l egi sl at ur e had i n mi nd t he

count er i nt ui t i ve meani ng t hat he assi gns on appeal t o the wor d

"benef i t [ ] , " and we have f ound none. Tr aver s ci t es cases t hat

i nt er pr et ot her Massachuset t s st at ut es t hat make emot i onal -

di st r ess damages subj ect t o t r ebl i ng. But t hose st at ut es al l

per mi t t r ebl i ng f or "damages" - - a br oadl y encompassi ng t er m t hat

r at her cl ear l y i ncl udes emot i onal - di st r ess damages - - r at her t han

l i mi t ed cat egor i es of damages t hat do not gener al l y i ncl ude

emot i onal - di st r ess damages pl us "ot her benef i t s. " See, e. g. ,

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 9( 3A) . I n f act , t he cont r ast bet ween


43/56

- 43 -

t he use of t he wor d "damages" i n t hose st at ut es and "benef i t [ ] " i n

t hi s one hi ghl i ght s t he pr obl emwi t h Tr aver s' s pr oposed r eadi ng of

t hi s s tat ut e.

Thus we, l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , do not bel i eve t he

Massachuset t s s t at e cour t s woul d concl ude that emot i onal - di st r ess

damages ar e subj ect t o t r ebl i ng under ch. 149, 150. 16

C.

Fi nal l y, r el yi ng on a Massachuset t s st at ut e, Tr aver s

seeks pr ej udgment i nt er est on t he $90, 000, pr e- t r ebl i ng por t i on of

t he backpay award and on t he award of emot i onal - di st r ess damages.

That l aw provi des: " I n any act i on i n whi ch a ver di ct i s

r ender ed . . . f or pecuni ar y damages f or per sonal i nj ur i es t o t he

pl ai nt i f f or f or consequent i al damages . . . t her e shal l be added

by t he cl er k of cour t t o t he amount of damages i nt er est t her eon at

t he rat e of t wel ve per cent per annumf r omt he date of commencement

of t he act i on even t hough such i nt er est br i ngs t he amount of t he

16 Tr aver s al so ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed byr ef usi ng t o t r ebl e t he f r ont - pay awar d. But we decl i ne t o r eacht hi s quest i on of st at e l aw. The Di st r i ct Cour t el i mi nat ed t hef r ont - pay awar d ent i r el y and has not yet had an oppor t uni t y t ogr ant or r ej ect on t he mer i t s a mot i on t o t r ebl e f r ont pay. Shoul da r emi t t ed f r ont - pay awar d r esul t on r emand, we l eave i t t o t hepar t i es t o addr ess and t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o deci de whet her f r ontpay qual i f i es f or t r ebl i ng under t he Massachuset t s s t at ut e as " anyl ost wages and ot her benef i t s. " See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 150.


44/56

- 44 -

ver di ct or f i ndi ng beyond t he maxi mum l i abi l i t y i mposed by l aw. "

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 6B ( emphasi s added) . 17

As a t hr eshol d mat t er , FSS ar gues, i n per f unct or y

f ashi on, t hat Tr aver s may not r ai se t hi s i ssue t o us because he

accept ed r emi t t i t ur . But we concl ude t hat Donovan i s no obst acl e

t o our r evi ew of Tr aver s' s cl ai m f or pr ej udgment i nt er est on t he

backpay awar d and we al so concl ude t hat Traver s' s cl ai m f or

pr ej udgment i nt er est on t he emot i onal - di st r ess damages award f ai l s

f or r easons i ndependent of t he Donovan bar . For r easons we wi l l

gi ve bel ow, t he di sposi t i on of Tr aver s' s cl ai m f or pr ej udgment

i nt er est on t he backpay awar d depends on t he resol ut i on of a cl ose

quest i on of Massachuset t s l aw, and so we cer t i f y t hat quest i on t o

t he Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t . Fi nal l y, we concl ude

t hat t he cl ai m f or pr ej udgment i nt er est on t he emot i onal - di st r ess

17 FSS does not ar gue t hat t hi s st at ut e has no appl i cat i on t ot he Massachuset t s wage and t i ps l aw by vi r t ue of t hat l aw bei ng anempl oyment l aw. And we note t hat , i n any event , t he Massachuset t sCour t of Appeal s has appl i ed t hi s st at ut e t o cl ai ms of unl awf ulempl oyment r etal i at i on under Massachuset t s' st atut ory empl oymentl aw. See Sal vi v. Suf f ol k Ct y. Sher i f f ' s Dep' t , 855 N. E. 2d 777,788 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2006) ; see al so Bl ockel v. J . C. Penney Co. ,337 F

Travers v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Travers v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)