Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Fogg v. Ashcroft

Fogg v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

March 19, 2001, Argued ; June 22, 2001, Decided

No. 00-5138

Opinion

 [*105]  WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Matthew Fogg sued the United States Attorney General in federal district court, alleging that his employer, the United States Marshals Service, had discriminated against him on grounds of race in violation [**2]  of § 717 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. A jury, which under the 1991 amendments could  [*106]  issue a binding verdict for violations on or after the amendments' effective date (November 11, 1991), found for Fogg and awarded a verdict of $ 4 million. It also found for Fogg on his pre-1991 claims, but as to those its verdict was purely advisory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c). Applying the statute's damage cap limitation, the district court cut the verdict to $ 300,000. It denied Fogg's claims for equitable relief as well as his claims of pre-November 11, 1991 violations. It also rejected Fogg's contention that the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") had unlawfully rejected the procedural "non-discrimination" claims that he raised in that forum.

Here Fogg's lead argument is that the district court misinterpreted the 1991 Civil Rights Act's compensatory damages cap; he contends that the cap applies to each successful "claim," whereas the district court found it to apply to each lawsuit. We reject Fogg's contention. We also affirm the court's judgment on the MSPB issue and on the pre-1991 allegations. We nevertheless reverse and remand [**3]  because it appears that in denying Fogg's equitable claims the court did not recognize the issue-preclusive effects of the jury's verdict.

* * *

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

254 F.3d 103 *; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13924 **; 349 U.S. App. D.C. 26; 85 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1705

MATTHEW F. FOGG, APPELLANT v. JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE

Subsequent History: Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, On remand at Fogg v. Gonzales, 407 F. Supp. 2d 79, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35844 (D.D.C., July 25, 2005)

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 94cv02814).

Fogg v. Reno, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 34709 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 15, 1999)

Disposition: Reversed so that the district court can reconsider plaintiff's claims for equitable relief in light of a correct understanding of the issue preclusive effect of the jury's verdict. In all other respects the judgment affirmed.

CORE TERMS

cap, district court, lawsuit, complaining party, equitable relief, damages, argues, clear error, allegations, factors, cause of action, reprimand, compensatory, limitations, preclusion, regulation, ambiguity, deference, appears, binding, hostile

Civil Procedure, Remedies, Damages, Punitive Damages, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Title VII Discrimination, Amendments, Business & Corporate Compliance, Protection of Rights, Federally Assisted Programs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Compensatory Damages, Civil Rights Law, Contractual Relations & Housing, Equal Rights Under the Law (sec. 1981), Remedies, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Governments, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, False Claims Act, Scope & Definitions, Qui Tam Actions, Proof of Discrimination, Jury Trials, Right to Jury Trial, Actions in Equity, General Overview, Judgments, Preclusion of Judgments, Estoppel, Collateral Estoppel, Employees & Officials, Pensions & Benefits Law, Governmental Employees, US Civil Service Retirement System, Judicial Review, Employee Privacy, Medical & Psychological Examinations, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Trials, Bench Trials, Clearly Erroneous Review