Newton v. Equilon Enterprises LLC DBA Shell Oil Products US

Background

A jury trial took place in December 2018. The jury found for Equilon Enterprises LLC on Ciara Newton’s claims for discrimination, Fair Employment and Housing Act retaliation, and whistleblower retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5. It found for Newton on gender-based harassment and failure to prevent harassment. In a second phase, the jury awarded Newton $475,000 for past and future mental suffering and emotional distress, but found that Newton had not established the required knowledge, authorization, or ratification for punitive damages.

The court’s order addressed three motions: Equilon’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial, remittitur, or alteration of the judgment; Newton’s motion for attorneys’ fees; and Newton’s motion for review of the clerk’s taxation of costs.

Equilon’s Post-Trial Motion

Equilon argued that the evidence did not support the harassment and failure-to-prevent-harassment verdicts, that the jury instructions were legally erroneous and prejudicial, that the damages instructions were confusing, that Newton’s counsel engaged in prejudicial misconduct, and that the $475,000 emotional-distress award was excessive. Equilon sought judgment in its favor on those claims, a new trial, or a reduction of the damages to no more than $25,000.

The court denied the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, the alternative motion for a new trial, the request for remittitur, and the request to alter or amend the judgment. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings. The evidence included supervisors’ statements that women did not last or succeed in the department, treatment of Newton’s qualification checklist, comments about women’s ability to work at the refinery, the “stay home” sticker placed on Newton’s desk, and Equilon’s failure to investigate Newton’s complaints and the sticker incident.

The court also rejected Equilon’s challenges to the jury instructions. It held that the instruction allowing the jury to consider “other hostile or abusive social interactions” properly reflected California law when read with the requirements that the conduct be unwanted, because Newton was a woman, and severe or pervasive. The court found no prejudicial error in the instruction concerning failure to investigate or in the damages instructions. It also found that any error in the avoidable-consequences instruction was harmless.

The court held that the damages award was supported by Newton’s testimony and other trial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law. It also rejected Equilon’s claims that Newton’s counsel’s closing arguments warranted a new trial, noting that the challenged arguments did not amount to misconduct and that Equilon had not shown prejudice.

Attorneys’ Fees

Newton sought attorneys’ fees under California Government Code section 12965(b), using a lodestar calculation. A lodestar is the number of reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Newton requested a lodestar of $908,152.75 for the litigation, $24,206.25 for work on the fee motion, and a 1.75 multiplier.

The court found the requested hours and hourly rates reasonable but reduced the litigation lodestar by 10% because Newton did not prevail on all of her claims. The court found that the unsuccessful whistleblower claim was largely distinct from the successful harassment-related claims and did not appear to aid the jury’s resolution of those claims. The court declined to award the requested multiplier, finding that the case was not sufficiently novel or complex, the results were not particularly exceptional, and the lodestar already fairly compensated counsel.

The court granted Newton’s attorneys’ fee motion in part and awarded $841,543.73 in attorneys’ fees. It also awarded $20,389.04 in expert and litigation-consultant fees that had not been awarded on the costs bill.

Review of Taxed Costs

Newton asked the court to review the clerk’s denial of costs for daily trial transcripts and videotaped depositions. The court granted this motion in part. It awarded $7,406.34 for trial transcripts because Newton used them in closing argument and in opposing Equilon’s post-trial motions, and because the transcripts were obtained in anticipation of an appeal. It awarded $5,885.63 for five videotaped depositions because Newton played portions of those depositions at trial for impeachment.

The court noted that Newton withdrew a request for $477.25 related to a written transcript and audio recording of the summary-judgment hearing, and conceded that $207.39 for videotape syncing was not recoverable. The court denied review of the disallowance of those amounts.

Disposition

The court denied Equilon’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial, remittitur, or alteration of the judgment. It granted in part Newton’s motion for attorneys’ fees and awarded the amounts stated above. It also granted in part Newton’s motion for review of taxation of costs and awarded the trial-transcript and videotaped-deposition costs. Newton was ordered to submit an amended judgment by September 27, 2019, and the order terminated Docket Nos. 292, 304, and 332.