Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance Co.

Background

John Pardovani sued Crown Building Maintenance Co., doing business as Able Building Maintenance, Jazz at Lincoln Center, Inc., Joe Miele, and Richard Cruz. The opinion states that Able and Jazz were Pardovani’s joint employers, Miele was a former Crown manager, and Cruz was a Jazz operations manager. At a nine-day trial in November 2022, the jury found that Pardovani proved race-based discrimination or a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It awarded him $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

The jury found that Pardovani did not prove retaliation under those laws. It also found for Miele on a defamation claim based on an email Pardovani sent to Miele’s employer, awarding Miele $1. Pardovani was represented by counsel through trial. After counsel withdrew at Pardovani’s request, Pardovani filed the post-trial motions discussed in this opinion without a lawyer.

Pardovani’s requests

Pardovani moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to reconsider or change the judgment and asked the court to admit what he described as new evidence. The court also considered his reconsideration request under Rule 59(a) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. Pardovani sought a new trial on his retaliation claim, arguing that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. He also argued that the court made legal or factual errors, including by accepting the trial’s reassignment to Judge Stein and by excluding photographs of a swastika incident.

Pardovani submitted 18 proposed exhibits, including photographs, audio and video files, and emails. He also sought a new trial on a proposed claim that he had been terminated in retaliation for complaining about race discrimination.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally requiring an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear legal error or prevent manifest injustice. It found that Pardovani had identified none of those grounds and had not shown that the court overlooked law or facts that could have changed its earlier decisions.

The court rejected the request to admit the proposed evidence. Under the standard for relief based on newly discovered evidence, the evidence must concern facts existing at the time of the decision, have been unavailable despite due diligence, be admissible and likely to change the result, and not merely repeat evidence already offered. The court found that Pardovani did not claim the exhibits were newly discovered. It stated that the exhibits appeared to come from his own files, that some were color versions of photographs used at trial, and that Pardovani acknowledged his lawyer had made a strategic decision not to introduce them. The court ruled that relief was not available to undo the consequences of that litigation strategy.

The court also upheld the reassignment of the case to Judge Stein immediately before trial testimony began. The original judge had a family emergency after opening statements, and Judge Stein certified that he was familiar with the record and could hear the case without prejudice to the parties. The court noted that no party objected to the reassignment.

Regarding the excluded swastika photograph, the court stated that one photograph concerned an incident allegedly occurring before Jazz hired Able to perform maintenance services. The court had excluded it under Evidence Rule 403 because Pardovani could not show who placed the swastika, whose locker was involved, or whether Jazz knew about the incident, and because the incident preceded the relevant period. The court allowed another photograph concerning an incident allegedly occurring during the relevant period.

New-trial request and disposition

A court may order a new trial when the jury reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict was a miscarriage of justice, including when it was against the weight of the evidence. Judge Stein stated that the retaliation verdict depended substantially on witness credibility and that the court should give substantial deference to the jury’s assessment of witnesses. The court found sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence supporting the jury’s conclusion that Pardovani had not proved retaliation. It therefore declined to set aside that verdict merely because Pardovani disagreed with it.

The court also denied the request for a new trial on the proposed termination claim. It stated that Pardovani had never alleged during the complaint, discovery, pretrial proceedings, or trial that he was terminated for complaining about race discrimination. The court concluded that disagreement with trial strategy and dissatisfaction with the verdict did not justify a new trial.

The court denied in its entirety Pardovani’s motion for reconsideration and to alter or amend the judgment, as well as his request to upload new evidence. This opinion addressed post-trial requests rather than deciding the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims anew.