Last week, the federal trial judge—who presided over the trial that resulted in the landmark $5.1 million verdict against BMW for national origin discrimination—denied BMW’s request for a new jury trial. I was able to attend the hearing over at the Greenville Federal Courthouse and watch the proceedings unfold. [Read More: Greenville Jury Issues $5.1 Million Verdict Against BMW for National Origin Discrimination] As you may recall from my previous post, the court reduced the $5.1 million verdict down to $300,000, but then awarded $390,000 in back pay to the plaintiff. [Read more: After $5.1 Million Verdict, Judge Orders BMW to Pay Additional $390,000 in Back Pay]
Why Did the Court Deny BMW’s Motion for a New Trial?
BMW’s request for a new trial is not unusual. The losing party almost always files this type of motion, even if they do not expect to win. But in order to preserve certain issues and arguments for appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the party still has to go through the, ah, motions. (I’m very popular at parties.)
The standard that BMW has to meet is pretty high. Essentially, the question is whether there is any evidence in the record—through testimony of witnesses or through documents—to support a reasonable jury’s decision. BMW’s arguments consisted mostly of, “Well, OUR witnesses testified that BMW did NOT discriminate, so we should get a new trial.” As the judge noted, if that was the standard, we wouldn’t need jury trials. The jury’s entire job is to determine what we call “questions of fact.” That means if two witnesses disagree about relevant facts, then the jury has to decide who is more credible (believable) and which version of the stories to believe.
Based on the jury’s award of $5.1 million, it’s clear that the jury wholeheartedly rejected BMW’s version and agreed with Plaintiff Kelly Dawsey. Of course, BMW’s written policy document that laid out the entire unlawful practice of using national origin as a basis for personnel decisions helped a whole lot.
Ultimately, the judge found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict. BMW’s motion for a new trial was denied.
What Happens Next?
The court still has to rule on plaintiff counsel Brian Murphy’s motion for attorney’s fees. That motion, and its ensuing twist and turns, deserves its own separate post. But attorney’s fees now remains the primary issue still outstanding before the trial court. Once that question is resolved, BMW will appeal. I don’t really see any viable appellate issues, but of course BMW has plenty of money to delay payment of the verdict as long as possible, even if the verdict continues to accrue additional post-judgment interest and attorney’s fees in the meantime.
I’ll keep you updated as this case continues to wind its way through the court system.
In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns about unlawful discrimination in the workplace, feel free to reach out to my office at (864) 278-5389 or via our Contact Us page.
