Schiff Hardin Prevails in Appeal of Title VII Retaliation Suit

• Client: Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.
• Date: October 2011
• Location: New York

Summary:

Schiff Hardin attorneys successfully defended their client, a nuclear power plant operator, in an appeal involving alleged retaliation against a former employee.

The plaintiff had been employed as a security guard at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. He asserted that after he complained about a co-worker's sexual harassment, he and his work were scrutinized and criticized, until work became so intolerable that he resigned. His federal lawsuit against his former employer included claims for hostile work environment and retaliation. The jury rejected his hostile work environment claim, but returned a verdict finding Entergy liable for retaliation and awarding punitive damages of $500,000.

Schiff Hardin assisted Entergy in post-trial and appeal proceedings. The trial judge granted Entergy's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, vacating the jury's finding of retaliation and award of punitive damages. The plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit upheld the judgment in Entergy's favor in its entirety. It held that, even when viewed in the plaintiff's favor, the asserted acts of retaliation (including investigations and counseling) were non-disciplinary and too trivial to amount to materially adverse actions, as required for a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — particularly in the context of security at a nuclear power facility. The Second Circuit also held that, in any event, the punitive damage award "was wholly without basis." It held that Entergy did not act with malice or reckless indifference, and a reasonable jury could only find that it made a good-faith effort to comply with its obligations under Title VII.

Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., 2d Cir., No. 10-1425-cv