Percy v. State of New York
- Reznik
- 7:16-cv-05304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Percy v. Townsend, Judge Reznik denied Percy’s request for prejudgment interest on emotional-distress damages.
Violene Percy did not receive the requested $108,924.66 in prejudgment interest. Basil Townsend was not required by this order to pay that additional interest. The order also addressed Percy’s bill of costs by directing her to re-file it.
What happened
In Violene Percy v. Basil Townsend, a jury found for Percy on her hostile-work-environment claim under New York’s Human Rights Law and awarded her $125,000 for non-economic injuries. Percy asked the court to add $108,924.66 in prejudgment interest.
The court denied the request. It explained that prejudgment interest is generally intended to compensate for amounts such as unpaid wages, while the jury’s award for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress was not easily tied to particular time periods. The court found that additional interest was unnecessary to fully compensate Percy.
Judge Victoria Reznik also directed Percy to re-file her bill of costs under the Clerk’s instructions; the Clerk would address those costs after receiving the filing.
The detailed version
- Percy v. State of New York · No. 7:16-cv-05304
- Reznik
- May 30, 2024
Background
A jury returned a verdict for Violene Percy on her hostile-work-environment claim under the New York State Human Rights Law. The jury awarded Percy $125,000 in compensatory damages for non-economic injuries, including pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress.
Percy moved to amend the judgment to add $108,924.66 in prejudgment interest. She calculated that amount using New York’s 9% statutory interest rate, beginning May 27, 2014, which she identified as the date of the last discriminatory act, and ending January 29, 2024, the date of the verdict. Basil Townsend did not file opposition papers. Percy also filed a bill of costs, but the Clerk instructed her to re-file it after the court decided the interest motion.
Issue
The issue was whether the court should award prejudgment interest on the jury’s $125,000 award for non-economic compensatory damages under the New York State Human Rights Law. Prejudgment interest is interest added for the period before judgment.
Court’s reasoning
Judge Victoria Reznik explained that awarding interest is generally within the district court’s discretion. Interest is ordinarily appropriate for lost wages or back pay because those amounts can be calculated over specific periods. Courts have been less consistent about awarding interest on compensatory damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress.
The court declined to award interest because the damages were for non-economic injuries and were awarded under state law. Those damages were difficult to calculate, were not amounts withheld from Percy over a defined period, and could not easily be divided into specific time periods like back pay. The court also noted that the jury had heard evidence about Percy’s non-economic damages and had been instructed that compensatory damages are intended to make her whole. The court therefore found no reason to second-guess the jury’s calculation.
Disposition
The court denied Percy’s motion for prejudgment interest. The court directed Percy to re-file her bill of costs according to the Clerk’s instructions, after which the Clerk would address that bill.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.