THE INDIANA LAWYER
LEWIS CASE
Indiana Trial Reports
Verdicts and Settlements Form
Type of Action:
Employment / Race Discrimination and Retaliation
Name of Case:
Carol R. Lewis v. John Dalton, Secretary of the
Navy.
Type of Injuries:
Lost wages from denial of promotion, emotional
distress.
Date of Judgment:
Satisfaction of Judgment June 27, 1997; Final
Judgment September 4, 1996.
Court/Case #:
U. S. District Court, S. D. Ind.; Case No. IP
94-0814-C-H/G.
Judge or Jury Trial:
Jury for post-1991 Act claim; Judge for pre-1991 Act
claim.
Name of Judge:
Honorable David F. Hamilton.
Damages Awarded:
$59,500 for post-1991 Act retaliation claim; $10,075
for pre-1991 Act race discrimination claim; $139,518.72 for attorney fees and costs.
Settlement Amount:
Before trial, defendant filed an offer of judgment
in the amount of $25,000 plus attorney fees and costs.
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Richard L. Darst, Indianapolis.
Attorney for Defendant:
Available upon request.
Insurance Carrier:
None.
Case Information:
In 1990, plaintiff was denied a promotion as a
department secretary on the departmental row of offices because of her race. No black
person had ever been assigned on a permanent basis as a department secretary on the
departmental row, but black secretaries were allowed to fill in as substitutes when white
secretaries were absent.
In July, 1990, plaintiff submitted an application, signed by
plaintiff, showing three years of experience in the department. Another application with a
false signature of plaintiff's name showed less than a year of experience in the
department. The defendant gave no explanation of how the second application with a false
signature of plaintiff showing less experience was in the defendant's records.
Plaintiff had received outstanding performance appraisals before the
non-selection. The instructions to the selection committee were to review the applications
and personnel files. The committee members testified that they did not look at the
applications or the personnel files. All committee members were white. The court found
that the black applicants had better objective qualifications than the white employees.
The committee leader's notes switched criticisms of the white selectee to the black
plaintiff and omitted achievements of the black plaintiff. Committee members gave
constructive feedback to white employees but not to black employees.
In 1993, plaintiff was promoted by another supervisor to a similar
position, but not to the departmental row and not to the further promotion which whites
had received by that time. After the promotion, the first supervisor asked the second
supervisor if she was aware of plaintiff's discrimination complaint. However, the first
supervisor testified at trial that he did not tell anyone about plaintiff's discrimination
complaint, contradicting the second supervisor's trial testimony. Plaintiff was one of the
few blacks, and may have been the only black, working under the first supervisor's
supervision. Plaintiff was not granted another promotion, although white employees were
promoted.
The defendant destroyed or lost much of the relevant records. The
defendant resisted discovery of personnel records of the department, but at trial, the
defendant offered testimony about personnel records of the entire plant which had not been
disclosed to the plaintiff. The court did not admit such testimony.
The defendant refused to stipulate to any facts. The defendant used
national security regulations to discourage employees from testifying against the employer
without the employer's permission. The defendant told plaintiff's witnesses, who had
agreed to testify voluntarily against the employer, that unless they were personally
served with a subpoena, they could not go to court or they must take annual leave.
After trial, the defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's judgment,
because she had not listed her 1990 administrative discrimination complaint as an asset in
her bankruptcy petition in 1992. Plaintiff substituted her bankruptcy trustee as the
plaintiff for her 1990 claim. Defendant attempted to disqualify plaintiff's attorney from
representing both plaintiffs, and the court denied the attempt. The court stated that the
defendant pursued a litigation strategy of a technique of harassment by attempting to
disqualify plaintiff's attorney. In awarding statutory attorney fees, the court noted that
the defendant litigated the case to the hilt.
Top
