![]() Rather, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to Ogden, assuming all conflicts were resolved in her favor, assuming all facts her evidence tended to prove, and giving her the benefit of all favorable inferences that reasonably may be drawn from the proven facts. ![]() “We, of course, do not resolve these discordant accounts ․” Howard v. Predictably, the testimony “varied wildly” according to whose witnesses were testifying. Alternatively, Wax Works contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant a new trial. On appeal, Wax Works argues there was insufficient evidence to support Ogden's sexual harassment, retaliation, constructive discharge, and punitive damages claims. The district court also awarded Ogden $69,768.00 in front pay. The district court entered judgment accordingly, save for the punitive damages award, which was reduced to $260,000.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. The jury awarded Ogden $40,000.00 in compensatory damages, $792.00 in pre-termination back pay, $75,599.00 in post-termination back pay, and $500,000.00 in punitive damages ($300,000.00 on the hostile environment claim and $200,000.00 on the retaliation claim). 3 Following a five day trial, the jury found Ogden was subjected to hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation, and further found Ogden was constructively discharged. Ogden (Ogden) on her claims of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. (Wax Works) appeals a post-trial order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, 2 denying its motion for JAML, or, alternatively, new trial, following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff/appellee Kerry D. ![]() Denne, Sioux City, Iowa, argued, for appellee. Jensen, Sioux City, Iowa, argued, for appellant. ARNOLD, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, 1District Judge. United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |