Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. United Health Programs of Am., Inc.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTH PROGRAMS OF AMERICA, INC., and COST CONTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Defendants.

14-CV-3673 (KAM)(JO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 6, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") commenced this action against defendants United Health Programs of America, Inc. ("UHP"), and Cost Containment Group, Inc. ("CCG") (collectively, "defendants"), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") on behalf of a group of defendants' former employees - Danielle Diaz, Jennifer Honohan, Regina Maldari, Cynthia Pegullo, Elizabeth Safara, Sandra Benedict, and Karen Josey (the "claimants"). Three claimants - plaintiff-intervenors Elizabeth Ontaneda, Francine Pennisi, and Faith Pabon ("plaintiff-intervenors," and, collectively with EEOC, "plaintiffs") - intervened in this action, seeking relief pursuant to Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). The case was tried for three weeks and submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict partially in plaintiffs' favor and partially in defendants' favor, and awarded plaintiffs a total of $5,102,060 in compensatory and punitive damages on April 15, 2018. Presently before the court are defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur (the "Motion"). For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motions are denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The court presumes familiarity with the factual and legal background of this matter, as recited in its summary judgment Memorandum and Order, EEOC v. United Health Programs of Am., Inc., 213 F. Supp. 3d 377 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Onionhead I"), motions in limine Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 131, Memorandum and Order re Motions in Limine), and December 28, 2018 post-trial Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 224), and provides procedural history only as necessary to resolve the instant motions.

In their submissions, plaintiffs claimed that they were subjected to, inter alia, religious discrimination, reverse religious discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in defendants' workplace in violation of Title VII and NYSHRL. In the fall of 2007, defendants' CEO, Robert Hodes, hired his aunt, Denali Jordan, who introduced religious andspiritual practices and teachings to the workplace.¹ Defendants' supervisors and officers, including Denali, imposed certain practices and beliefs, often referred to as "Onionhead" and "Harnessing Happiness," on plaintiffs.² On September 30, 2016, the court granted claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the discrete issue of whether certain practices and beliefs (referred to herein as "Onionhead" and "Harnessing Happiness") constitute a religion for purposes of Title VII, and granted in part and denied in part defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' reverse religious discrimination claims and hostile work environment claims premised on reverse religious discrimination. Onionhead I, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 3d at 398-402.

On April 2, 2018, the parties began a three-week jury trial on plaintiffs' claims that defendants had subjected nine claimants to a hostile work environment based on employer-imposed religious practices, subjected eight claimants to disparate treatment (including wrongful termination) based onclaimants' resistance or objections to defendants' religious practices, and subjected one claimant to disparate treatment (including wrongful termination) and retaliation based on that claimant's personal religious beliefs. For the purposes of trial and based on the court's Memorandum and Order on summary judgment, the parties stipulated that certain of defendants' alleged practices were religious, including, among other things: texts, beliefs, concepts, and practices concerning Onionhead, including Onionhead workshops; statements by Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Hodes and his aunt, Denali Jordan ("Denali"), that employees are "chosen"; praying in the workplace; and emails referencing God, divine power, spirits, spirituality, and demons. (ECF No. 184, Jt. Stip. Regarding Practices Deemed Religious; Trial Tr. at 15-16.)

On April 25, 2018, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of all plaintiffs on all of their hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the NYSHRL, and plaintiff-intervenor Pabon's wrongful termination claim under Title VII and the NYSHRL. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the remainder of the claims. The jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $5,102,060, consisting of compensatory and punitive damages. The jury awarded a total of $3,011,000 in compensatory damages as follows: $225,000 to Benedict; $190,000 to Diaz; $570,000 to Honohan; $180,000 to Josey; $308,000 toMaldari; $590,000 to Ontaneda; $180,000 to Pegullo; $248,000 to Pennisi; $80,000 to Safara; and $440,000 to Pabon. The jury awarded a total of $2,091,060 in punitive damages as follows: $400,000 to Diaz; $900,000 to Ontaneda; $160,000 to Pegullo; $381,000 to Pennisi; and $250,000 to Pabon. (ECF No. 207, Ct. Ex. 9, Verdict Form.)

In the court's December 28, 2018 Memorandum and Order, the court noted:

Title VII caps compensatory and punitive damages awards based on an employer's size. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). Because defendants had more than 14 and fewer than 100 employees during the relevant period, here compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII are capped at $50,000 per claimant. Id. The NYSHRL allows for and does not cap compensatory damages for employment discrimination, N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c)(iii), but it does not allow for punitive damages, Tse v. UBS Financial 55 Services, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 274, 309 n.24 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Thoreson v. Penthouse, Int'l, Ltd., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 494 (N.Y. 1992)).

(ECF No. 224, Memorandum and Order dated 12/28/18 54.)

Furthermore, the court noted that plaintiff-intervenors - Ontaneda, Pabon, and Pennisi - who had brought claims pursuant to Title VII and the NYSHRL, had uncapped compensatory damage awards but punitive damages awards capped at $50,000. (Id. at 55.) The remaining claimants - Benedict, Diaz, Honohan, Josey,Maldari, Pegullo, and Safara - had brought claims pursuant only to Title VII. Thus, each of their combined compensatory and punitive damages must be capped at $50,000. (Id.) Without prejudice to defendants' right to move for remittitur following the entry of judgment, the parties agreed that judgment should be entered against defendants as follows:

• Ontaneda: $640,000 (consisting of $590,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages);

• Pennisi: $298,000 (consisting of $248,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages);

• Pabon: $490,000 (consisting of $440,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages);

• Diaz: $50,000 (consisting of $40,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages);

• Pegullo: $50,000 (consisting of $40,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages);

• Benedict: $50,000 (consisting of $50,000 in compensatory damages);

• Honohan: $50,000 (consisting of $50,000 in compensatory damages);

• Josey: $50,000 (consisting of $50,000 in compensatory damages);

• Maldari: $50,000 (consisting of $50,000 in compensatory damages); and• Safara: $50,000 (consisting of $50,000 in compensatory damages).

(ECF No. 210-1, Pl. Mem. Relief & Damages 25-27; ECF No. 212, Def. Opp. Relief & Damages 35-36; ECF No. 217, Pl. Reply Relief & Damages 10.) The court agreed, and ordered that judgment be entered as described above without prejudice to defendants' right to move for remittitur. (ECF No. 224, Memorandum and Order dated 12/28/18 at 56.)

On December 28, 2018, the court granted EEOC's motion to stay the action until the federal government shutdown was concluded, or for thirty days, whichever was earlier, and ordered that any additional motions, including those made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59,must be filed within 28 days of the lifting of the stay. (Dkt. Order dated 12/28/18.) On January 29, 2019, the court issued a docket order reminding the parties that the stay was lifted as of January 28, 2019, per the court's docket order dated December 28, 2018, and directed the parties to file any post-trial motions within 28 days of the lifting of the stay. (Dkt. Order dated 1/29/19.) On March 21, 2019, the EEOC requested the court's permission to file an opposition memorandum up to 10 pages in excess of the court's 30-page limitation. (ECF No. 233, Letter Motion to File Excess Pages, dated 3/21/19.) On March 22, 2019, defendants objected to the EEOC's request tofile extra pages. (ECF No. 234, Opposition re Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, dated 3/22/19.) By docket order dated March 22, 2019, the court granted the EEOC's request for an additional 10 pages for its response, and also granted defendants an additional 10 pages for their reply. (Dkt. Order dated 3/22/19.)

Defendants subsequently renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 ("Rule 50") and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial; alternatively, defendants moved for remittitur pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 ("Rule 59"). (ECF No. 235, Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and for a New Trial or, in the Alternative, for Remittitur ("Def. Mot."); ECF No. 236, Defendants' Memorandum in Support re Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and for a New Trial or, in the Alternative, for Remittitur ("Def. Mem.").)³ EEOC filed its opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 237, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and for a New Trial or, in the Alternative, for Remittitur ("Pl. Mem.").) Defend...