Citations
- 248 F. Supp. 2d 856
Full opinion text
ORDER
DOTY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the motion of defendants Brinker International, Incorporated and Chili’s of Minnesota, Incorporated for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 or alternative motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 58 and upon the motion of plaintiff Fawn Wilson (“Wilson”) for judgment as a matter of law on defendants’ statute of limitation defense, or alternative motion for a new trial. Based upon a review of the file, record and proceeding herein, and for the reasons stated, the court denies defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, grants defendants’ motion for entry of judgment, denies plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law and denies plaintiffs motion for a new trial.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Fawn Wilson was employed by defendants Brinker International, Inc. and Chili’s of Minnesota, Inc. She sued them for discrimination based upon gender, sexual harassment, reprisal and retaliation in violation of state and federal law. Plaintiff claimed that defendants discriminated based on gender by creating a hostile work environment. Plaintiff also claimed that defendants discriminated against her in the terms and conditions of her employment when defendants demoted her and failed to promote her to executive chef. Further, plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in a course of retaliation and reprisal against plaintiff because of plaintiffs opposition to defendants’ sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Plaintiff sought damages from defendants.
The case was tried to a jury. During trial and before the court submitted the ease to the jury, both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50. The court took the motions under advisement and submitted the case to the jury. The court received the jury verdict on November 12, 2002. The jury answered the verdict form as follows:
We, the jury in the above entitled action, return the following answers to the questions presented to us by the court:
1. Did Brinker International, Inc. act as a joint employer of Fawn Wilson?
Yes X No_
2. Did Chili’s of Minnesota, Inc., act as a joint employer of Fawn Wilson?
Yes X No_
FEDERAL SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM
8. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff has proven that Fawn Wilson was sexually harassed in violation of Title VII?
Yes X No_
4. Did any act of harassment occur after October 2,1998?
Yes_ No X
STATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM
5. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff has proven that Fawn Wilson was sexually harassed in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act?
Yes X No.__
6. Did any act of harassment occur after July 28,1998?
Yes No X
SEX DISCRIMINATION
7. Do you fínd by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff has proven that Fawn Wilson was subject to discrimination on the basis of her sex?
Yes_ No X
Note: You must answer the Questions 7(a) and 7(b) only if you answered “Yes” to Question 7. If you answered “No” to Question 7, then go to Question 8.
7(a) If you found in favor of Fawn Wilson with respect to defendant-employer’s decision to discriminate against her by demoting her, has the defendant-employer proved by the preponderance of evidence that it would have demote Fawn Wilson regardless of her sex?
Yes_ No_
7(b) If you found in favor of plaintiff Fawn Wilson with respect to defendant-employer’s decision to discriminate against her by not promoting her to Executive Chef, has the defendant-employer proved by the preponderance of evidence that it would have denied Fawn Wilson the promotion regardless of her sex?
Yes_ No_
FEDERAL CLAIM OF REPRISAL
8. Do you find by the preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff has proven that Fawn Wilson was subject to reprisal in violation of Title VII?
Yes__ No X
STATE CLAIM OF REPRISAL
9. Do you find by the preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff has proven that Fawn Wilson was subject to reprisal in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act?
Yes_ No X
NOTE: If you answered