Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

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

  • Case Opinion

Rau v. Apple-Rio Mgmt. Co.

Rau v. Apple-Rio Mgmt. Co.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

September 30, 1999, Decided ; September 30, 1999, Filed

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:97-CV-2345-GGB

Opinion

 [*1345] ORDER REGARDING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

The jury trial of this case concluded on August 20, 1999 when the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor on two counts. This action is currently before the court on this court's August 24, 1999 order requiring the parties to brief the issue of how and in what amount judgment should be entered [Doc. 132], and on plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment [Doc. 133].

On plaintiff's claim for sex discrimination, the jury awarded $ 17,000 in back pay, $ 50,000 in compensatory damages, [**2]  and $ 1,200,000 in punitive damages. On plaintiff's claim for retaliation, the jury awarded  [*1346]  $ 17,000 in back pay, $ 42,000 in compensatory damages, and $ 500,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff's remaining claims were dismissed by this court on March 30, 1999, including all claims against defendant Steve Smith.

Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment in the full amount of the jury award ($ 1,826,000). ( Doc. 133 P. 1). Plaintiff concedes that this amount exceeds the cap on damages required by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, but argues that application of § 1981a should be the subject of post-judgment motions. (Id., Brief at 2-3). Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment interest, at the rate of 12%, on the total award for back pay and compensatory damages ($ 126,000). ( Id. at 4). Finally, plaintiff seeks an array of injunctive and declaratory relief. ( Id. at 4-7).

Defendant opposes entry of judgment in the full amount of the verdict because it exceeds the § 1981a cap. (Doc. 134 at 2-8). According to defendant, plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of $ 334,000. ( Id. at 8). Defendant also contends [**3]  that prejudgment interest is not warranted in this case, and that plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief because she did not request it in the pretrial order and because her request is excessive. ( Id. at 8-11).

For reasons stated below, plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment [Doc. 133] is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Judgement will be entered in the amount of $ 334,000 with the injunctive relief specified below.

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.

85 F. Supp. 2d 1344 *; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21580 **

JANET M. RAU, Plaintiff, v. APPLE-RIO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., d/b/a T.J. APPLEBEE'S; CAFE VENTURES, INC.; APPLE RESTAURANTS, INC.; and STEVE SMITH, Defendants.

Disposition:  [**1]  Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment [Doc. 133] DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.

CORE TERMS

injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, compensatory damages, backpay, damages, entry of judgment, jury award, title vii, contends, cap, declaratory, injunction, employees, cases, declaratory judgment, complaining party, pretrial order, equitable relief, punitive damages, discriminatory, defendants', calculated, injuries

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Entry of Judgments, General Overview, Remedies, Damages, Punitive Damages, Civil Rights Law, Labor & Employment Law, Contractual Relations & Housing, Equal Rights Under the Law (sec. 1981), Remedies, Discrimination, Title VII Discrimination, Amendments, Compensatory Damages, Proof of Discrimination, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Jury Trials, Right to Jury Trial, Actions in Equity, Judgment Interest, Prejudgment Interest, Courts, Common Law, Torts, Types of Damages, Pretrial Matters, Conferences, Pretrial Orders, Judicial Officers, Magistrates, Pretrial Referrals, Affirmative & Equitable Relief, Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Affirmative Action, Court & Government Imposed Plans, Actionable Discrimination, Injunctions