Lust v. Sealy, Inc.

Lust v. Sealy, Inc.

Opinion

 [*582]  POSNER, Circuit Judge. Tracey Lust sued her employer, Sealy, the mattress manufacturer, for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. A jury returned a verdict in her favor, awarding her $ 100,000 in compensatory damages and $ 1 million in punitive damages. ] Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D), which places a ceiling of $ 300,000 on the total damages that may be awarded in an employment discrimination case against the largest employers (a category that includes Sealy), White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry., 364 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2004), the judge reduced the total damages award to $ 300,000, to which she added $ 1,500 in back pay (which is not within the statutory meaning of "damages," 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(2)).

Sealy attacks the judgment on a variety of grounds, not all of which require discussion given the very full opinion by the district judge turning down Sealy's motion for reconsideration. The [**2]  ground it presses hardest is that no reasonable jury could have found sex discrimination. But this misunderstands the function of appellate review of a jury verdict by treating as gospel self-serving testimony by Sealy managers (riven with inconsistencies, by the way) that the jury was free to disbelieve. Sealy's contention that "the jury cannot be permitted to simply choose to disbelieve the evidence offered by Sealy" is a misleading half-truth. ] It is true that a plaintiff cannot prevail without offering any evidence of his own, simply by parading the defendant's witnesses before the jury and asking it to disbelieve them. That would be "a no-evidence case, and  [*583]  [in] such a case a plaintiff must lose, because he has the burden of proof." Millbrook v. IBP, Inc., 280 F.3d 1169, 1181 (7th Cir. 2002), quoting EEOC v. G-K-G, Inc., 39 F.3d 740, 746-47 (7th Cir. 1994); see also In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 295 F.3d 651, 655 (7th Cir. 2002). But if the plaintiff offers evidence of her own, as she did here, the jury is free to disbelieve the defendant's contrary evidence. There is no presumption that witnesses are truthful.

 [**3]  Lust was a sales representative who has been employed in Sealy's Madison, Wisconsin office since 1992. Her supervisor, Scott Penters, regarded her highly. In 2000 an opportunity opened up for promotion to "Key Account Manager" in Chicago, the key account being a mattress retailer called Bedding Experts. The appointment would have represented a significant promotion for Lust, who had repeatedly expressed to Penters her avid desire to become a Key Account Manager. Instead the job went to a young man. Two months later, after Lust filed her discrimination claim with the EEOC, Sealy offered her and she accepted a Key Account Manager's position in the Madison office. It is because of the short delay in her obtaining the promotion that the award of back pay was so small.

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