Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................829 II. BACKGROUND.........................................................829 III. ANALYSIS..............................................................831 A. A. Defendants’ Motion For Judgment As A Matter of Law, New Trial, Or Remittitur...............................................831 1. Judgment as a Matter of Law on Liability Issues...................831 a. Sufficiency of the Evidence — Sexual Harassment...............832 b. Sufficiency of the Evidence — Retaliation.......................836 2. Judgment as a Matter of Law and Remittitur on Damages ..........840 a. Punitive Damages...........................................840 b. Emotional Distress Damages..................................842 c. Back Pay and Medical Expenses..............................846 3. New Trial.......................................................847 B. Gilster’s Motion For Equitable Relief And Front Pay...................854 2. Front Pay.................................... 854 a. Factors in Determining Front Pay ......... 855 b. Calculation of Front Pay.................. 859 2. Injunction Against Primebank................. 863 3. Additional Equitable Relief — Letter of Reference 867 C. Gilster’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs........ 868 2. Applicable Standards.......................... 869 2. Reasonable Hourly Rates...................... 870 3. Reasonable Hours Worked..................... 872 a. Reduction for Block-billing ................ 873 b. Reduction for Lack of Specificity........... 874 c. Reduction for Failure to Follow Local Rule .. 875 d. Reduction for Overstaffing................. 875 e. Problems with Billing Judgment and Format 877 4. Calculation of Fees ........................... 878 5. Award of Costs ............................... 879 D. Interest.......................................... 884 2. Pre-judgment Interest........................ 884 2. Post-judgment Interest ....................... 885 IV. CONCLUSION..........................................................885 A. Orders Regarding Post-Trial Motions.................................885 B. Summary of Damages................................................885 C. Order for Judgment..................................................886 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Mindy Gilster testified at trial, “I wanted to be left alone, and I wanted to do my work....” Gilster expected, as an employee with defendant Primebank, only the simplest guarantee of workplace equality promised by Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. “Men and women have every right to be left alone without sexual abuse in the workplace.” Eich v. Bd. of Regents for Cent. Mo. State Univ., 350 F.3d 752, 762 (8th Cir.2003). Likewise, men and women have every right to be left alone after they report sexual harassment. A jury found that defendants Joseph Strub and Primebank violated these basic tenets of our civil rights laws when Joseph Strub sexually harassed Mindy Gilster and, later, when Strub and Primebank retaliated against Gilster for reporting the sexual harassment and retaliation she experienced. The jury awarded a total of $900,301.22 in damages. Before me now are the parties’ post-trial motions. II. BACKGROUND This sexual harassment and retaliation case arose from plaintiff Mindy Gilster’s employment with Primebank at its Sioux City, Iowa, branch, where she worked as a credit administrator from December 3, 2007, until her termination on February 10, 2011. Gilster brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code § 216.1 et seq., against Primebank, Primebank, Inc., and Joseph Strub, Primebank’s Sioux City market president and Gilster’s supervisor, alleging that Joseph Strub sexually harassed her and that Strub and Primebank retaliated against her for reporting the sexual harassment and for reporting retaliation. Beginning April 3, 2012, the parties tried the case to an eight-person jury. Following seven days of evidence and argument, the case was submitted to the jury on the morning of April 11, 2012. After approximately six hours of deliberation, the jury returned its verdict on April 11, 2012, in favor of Gilster on both her sexual harassment and retaliation claims. On Gilster’s sexual harassment claim, the jury found that Joseph Strub’s sexual harassment resulted in a significant change in employment status and that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment. For both Gilster’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims, the jury rejected the defendants’ partial “after-acquired evidence” defense, determining that the defendants failed to prove that, even if they had not terminated Gilster on February 10, 2011, they would have terminated her on September 1, 2011, the date on which they discovered she had been forwarding e-mails to her attorneys from her work email during work hours. The jury awarded Gilster a total of $900,301.22 in damages, broken down as follows: on Gilster’s sexual harassment claim, $20,000 for past emotional distress, $60,000 for future emotional distress, $28,820.12 in back pay, $1330.49 for past medical expenses, and $200,000 in punitive damages; on Gilster’s retaliation claim, $20,000 for past emotional distress, $140,000 for future emotional distress, $28,820.12 in back pay, $1330.49 for past medical expenses, and $400,000 in punitive damages. The question of whether to grant reinstatement or front pay was left for me to decide. At a telephonic status conference on April 18, 2012, I set a 30-day deadline for any post-trial motions and indicated to the parties that I would defer entry of judgment until after resolution of the parties’ post-trial motions. Before me now are Gilster’s May 17, 2012, Motion For Equitable Relief And Front Pay (docket no. 80); Gilster’s May 17, 2012, Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Expenses (docket no. 81); and the defendants’ May 18, 2012, Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law, New Trial, Or Remittitur (docket no. 82). The parties presented three hours of oral argument on these motions on July 5, 2012. Brooke Timmer and Whitney Judkins, of Fiedler & Timmer, P.L.L.C., in Des Moines, Iowa, appeared for Gilster, and Douglas Phillips, of Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., in Sioux City, Iowa, appeared for Primebank and Joseph Strub. The lawyers in this case have been exceptionally well-prepared and have represented their clients with great effort and skill. It has been a pleasure to preside over the trial and the pending motions. III. ANALYSIS I now turn to the analysis of the parties’ post-trial motions, beginning with the defendants’ Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law, New Trial, Or Remittitur. A. Defendants’ Motion For Judgment As A Matter of Law, New Trial, Or Remittitur The defendants renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. They urge that insufficient evidence existed for the jury to find in Gilster’s favor on her sexual harassment and retaliation claims. The defendants also move for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, remittitur on punitive damages. Additionally, the defendants move for judgment as a matter of law on future emotional distress damages and, in the alternative, move for remittitur on future and past emotional distress damages. They also request remittitur on the jury’s award of back pay and medical expenses. Finally, the defendants move for a new trial, based on comments Gilster’s counsel made in her rebuttal closing argument. I take each issue in turn. 1. Judgment as a Matter of Law on Liability Issues The defendants argue that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict in favor of Gilster on her sexual harassment and retaliation claims. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, a court may only grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed.R.CivP. 50(a)(1). The standard for judgment as a matter of law is exacting, as “[a] jury verdict is entitled to extreme deference.... ” Craig Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc., 528 F.3d 1001, 1009 (8th Cir.2008). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “‘[t]his demanding standard reflects our concern that, if misused, judgment as a matter of law can invade the jury’s rightful province.’ ” Penford Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 662 F.3d 497, 503 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir.1996)). A court may not disturb the jury’s verdict “unless, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the non-movant], [it] conclude[s] that no reasonable jury could have found in [the nonmovant’s] favor.” Heaton v. The Weitz Co., Inc., 534 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir.2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, a court “will not set aside a jury verdict unless there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the verdict.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating whether the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict in Gilster’s favor, I must: (1) resolve direct factual conflicts in favor of [Gilster], (2) assume as true all facts supporting [Gilster] which the evidence tended to prove, (3) give [Gilster] the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and (4) deny the motion if the evidence so viewed would allow reasonable jurors to differ as to the conclusions that could be drawn. See United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 419 F.3d 743, 746 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Pumps and Power Co. v. S. States Indus., 787 F.2d 1252, 1258 (8th Cir.1986)). I may not, however, “give [Gilster] ‘the benefit of unreasonable inferences, or those at war with the undisputed facts.’ ” Id. (quoting City of Omaha Employees Betterment Ass’% v. City of Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir.1989)). Of particular note in employment discrimination cases, “when the parties have developed a full trial record, [the court is] not concerned with plaintiffs prima facie case. What is relevant, at this point, is simply whether the plaintiffs evidence permits a reasonable inference of discrimination or retaliation.” E.E.O.C. v. Kohler Co., 335 F.3d 766, 772 (8th Cir. 2003). a. Sufficiency of the Evidence-Sexual Harassment To prevail on a claim of sexual harassment by a supervisor, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) a causal nexus exists between the harassment and plaintiffs protected group status; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment.” See Brenneman v. Famous Dave’s of Am., Inc., 507 F.3d 1139, 1143 (8th Cir.2007). There are two ways in which a plaintiff may demonstrate that the supervisor’s harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment, see Hulsey v. Pride Rests., LLC, 367 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir.2004): a) the sexual harassment resulted in a “tangible employment action” against the plaintiff, meaning “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits,” see Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998); or b) the sexual harassment was “‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment,’ ” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986)); accord Brenneman, 507 F.3d at 1143. The difference between these two avenues for proving that a supervisor’s sexual harassment “affected a term, condition, or privilege of ... employment” is that, where the employer has taken no “tangible employment action,” the employer may assert the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense to liability, which “consists of ‘two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.’ ” Weger v. City of Ladue, 500 F.3d 710, 718 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting Williams v. Mo. Dep’t of Mental Health, 407 F.3d 972, 976 (8th Cir.2005), in turn quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998)) (alteration omitted). Here, however, the defendants did not assert the Ellerth/Faragher defense “because there was no evidence plaintiff failed to take advantage of the Bank’s internal policies.” Defendants’ Brief at 9 n. 1 (docket no. 82-1). Because the Ellerth/Faragher defense was not at play in this case, Gilster could have established liability on her sexual harassment claim by proving either that Strub’s harassment resulted in a tangible employment action— that is, a significant change in employment status- — or that his harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Gilster’s employment and create a hostile working environment Accordingly, I instructed the jury that, “To win on her claim of sexual harassment, Ms. Gilster must prove the following elements”: 1) “One, Ms. Gilster was subjected to sexually offensive remarks and behavior from Mr. Strub.”; 2) “Two, such conduct was unwelcome.”; 3) “Three, such conduct was based on Ms. Gilster’s sex.”; 4) “Four, such conduct either (a) caused a significant change in Ms. Gilster’s employment status, or (b) was sufficiently severe or pervasive that Ms. Gilster did find, and a reasonable person in her position would have found, that her working environment was hostile.” Jury Instructions at 8-9 (docket no. 66). The defendants argue that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient for the jury to find in favor of Gilster on her sexual harassment claim. The defendants do not contest that Gilster proved the first three elements, but the defendants maintain that Gilster’s claim of sexual harassment fails as a matter of law because there was not sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Strub’s harassment a) caused a significant change in Gilster’s employment status or b) was sufficiently severe or pervasive for a reasonable person to find the environment hostile, though the defendants do not contest that Gilster herself found the environment hostile. The jury here found both that Strub’s harassment caused a significant change in Gilster’s employment status and that Strub’s harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive for a reasonable person to find Gilster’s work environment hostile. As explained above, however, because Gilster prevails on her claim if she proves either of these alternatives, I must deny the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law if I find, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [Gilster],” that a “reasonable jury could have found,” see Heaton, 534 F.3d at 887, either that Strub’s harassment caused a significant change in Gilster’s employment status or that Strub’s harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive for a reasonable person to find Gilster’s work environment hostile. I begin with whether the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Strub’s harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive for a reasonable person to find Gilster’s work environment hostile. The question of whether a work “environment would reasonably be perceived ... as hostile or abusive” “is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test.” See Harris, 510 U.S. at 22, 114 S.Ct. 367. “There is no bright line between sexual harassment and merely unpleasant conduct....” Henthorn v. Capitol Commc’ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Hathaway v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1214, 1221 (8th Cir.1997)). Consequently, courts must examine “all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367; accord, Henthorn, 359 F.3d at 1026. Although the factors identified in Harris “can be considered in deciding whether an environment is hostile, no single factor is required or determinative, and the relevancy and weight of any factor must be evaluated in light of all the facts of a specific case.” Hathaway, 132 F.3d at 1221. When considering the total effect of multiple instances of harassing conduct, courts must remember that “a work environment is shaped by the accumulation of abusive conduct, and the resulting harm cannot be measured by carving it into a series of discrete incidents.” Eich, 350 F.3d at 759 (quoting Hathaway, 132 F.3d at 1222) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[o]nce there is evidence of improper conduct and subjective offense, the determination of whether the conduct rose to the level of abuse is largely in the hands of the jury.” See id. at 761 (quoting Howard v. Burns Bros., Inc., 149 F.3d 835, 840 (8th Cir.1998)). Gilster testified to the following instances of conduct and remarks that Strub directed at her, beginning in approximately summer 2008 and continuing until July 2009, when she complained to Prime-bank. Gilster stated that when she began working at Primebank, she respected Strub as a boss and mentor. Gilster and Strub previously worked together at another local bank, and Strub actually recruited Gilster to work at Primebank’s new Sioux City location. However, Gilster first began to feel uneasy with Strub when, on several occasions, Strub asked her to go with him to meet a client outside the office, but, rather than meeting a client, Strub ran errands with Gilster in the car. Strub often complimented Gilster’s physical appearance and, when she wore a dress or skirt, he would say “nice legs,” carrying out the “i” in “nice.” Gilster started wearing only pants to work to avoid these comments. Strub once put his arm around her and told her that they should “hook up.” On one occasion, when Gilster asked Strub about a bonus, he told her — in the lobby of the bank and in front of her coworkers — to come into his office, take out her teeth (Gilster testified that she wears dentures), and shut the door, which Gilster understood to refer to oral sex. After that incident, on another occasion, when Strub told another female employee that the employee owed him a favor, the employee responded that her teeth would not come out, and Strub told Gilster that she would have to pay for the other employee. One morning, Strub approached Gilster while she was fixing breakfast at the counter in the break room at work, placed his hands on the counter on either side of her, and leaned into her, with his pelvis touching her back side and his arms touching her arms. Another morning, Strub walked by Gilster’s desk, picked up her orange juice, took a drink, and then dribbled it back out of his mouth into her cup. At a taping for a TV commercial for the bank, Strub told Gilster to bend down and show more bra to get more customers for the bank. He massaged her shoulders between five and ten times, and Gilster testified that Strub did so in an “intimate manner.” The defendants first argue that other witnesses did not corroborate Gilster’s testimony and that Strub, during his testimony, denied all but the “denture comments” and a comment on Gilster’s bra at the commercial shoot. The defendants further assert that, even accepting Gilster’s testimony as true, the instances of Strub’s conduct to which Gilster testified do not rise to the level of a hostile environment. I reject the defendants’ first argument regarding the lack of corroborating evidence for Gilster’s testimony. At the judgment as a matter of law stage, I view the evidence in the light most favorable to Gilster and resolve factual conflicts in her favor. See United Fire, 419 F.3d at 746. Thus, where Gilster’s and Strub’s testimony conflicts, I accept Gilster’s version of events. Unquestionably, the defense did an admirable job of mustering numerous witnesses and admissible evidence to refute Gilster’s claims and evidence. Gilster also did a fine job in cross-examination to undermine this defense evidence. The jurors were extensively and properly instructed that they were the sole judges of the facts, and that they “may believe all of what any witness says, only part of it, or none of it.” See Jury Instructions at 6 (docket no. 66). This was a classic case in which the jury performed its historic function in deciding the credibility and believability of the witnesses and the evidence. I would dramatically undermine the historic function of the jury by setting aside its verdict for lack of corroborating evidence. Moreover, I disagree with the defendants that a reasonable jury could not conclude, based on the evidence produced at trial, that a reasonable person would find Strub’s harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Strub “physically threaten[ed] [and] humilliat[ed]” Gilster when he caged her against the counter and pressed his groin into her back side. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367. He touched her on a number of other occasions by massaging her and, in one instance, putting his arm around her. See id. (indicating that frequency of incidents is a factor for courts to consider in determining whether environment was hostile). His comments— made in front of Gilster’s co-workers, no less — suggesting that Gilster remove her dentures and perform oral sex on him were graphic, intensely personal, and incredibly humiliating. Strub also requested a sexual relationship with Gilster by suggesting they “hook up.” While Strub’s frequent comments on Gilster’s appearance may seem relatively minor in and of themselves, they become more significant and demonstrate a pattern of harassing behavior, when viewed in concert with Strub’s unwanted physical contact and graphic references to oral sex. See Eich, 350 F.3d at 759 (“[A] work environment is shaped by the accumulation of abusive conduct .... ”). Evaluating the numerous instances of harassing conduct and comments here, as a whole, I find that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, as the jury did here, that Strub’s harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive for a reasonable person to find Gilster’s work environment hostile. See id. at 759 n. 1 (collecting cases in which a combination of offensive physical contact, requests for sex, and sexual remarks constituted an actionable hostile environment). Because I have determined that sufficient evidence was adduced at trial for a reasonable jury to determine that Strub’s harassment was sufficiently severe or perT vasive to amount to a hostile work environment, I need not reach the question of whether Strub’s harassment caused a significant change in Gilster’s employment status. I deny the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Gilster’s sexual harassment claim. b. Sufficiency of the Evidence-Retaliation To prevail on a claim of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she engaged in protected conduct; (2) she suffered materially adverse employment action, action that would deter a reasonable employee from making a charge of employment discrimination or harassment; and (3) the materially adverse action was causally linked to the protected conduct.” Fercello v. County of Ramsey, 612 F.3d 1069, 1077-78 (8th Cir.2010). A materially adverse action is one that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The White Court explained that it defined a “materially adverse action” in intentionally broad terms “because the significance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances.” Id. at 69, 126 S.Ct. 2405. In other words, “[c]ontext matters.” Id. To establish a causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse action, “the plaintiff must show that the protected conduct was a ‘determinative — not merely motivating — factor in the employer’s adverse employment decision.’ ” Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trs., 628 F.3d 980, 985 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Van Horn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 526 F.3d 1144, 1148 (8th Cir.2008)). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that “direct evidence establishing causation ... is seldom available[,]” and plaintiffs, therefore, often must rely on “indirect evidence ... establishing an inference of retaliatory animus.” See id. at 986 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action may give rise to such an inference, but “[generally, more than a temporal connection is required.... ” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The jury found that both Strub and Primebank retaliated against Gilster. The defendants do not dispute that Gilster engaged in protected activity, but they argue that Gilster failed to establish a causal connection between her complaints and the alleged adverse employment actions. The defendants assert that Gilster relied almost exclusively on the timing of her protected activity, in relation to the adverse actions, to prove causation. The defendants maintain that too much time passed between Gilster’s protected activity and the adverse actions to give rise to an inference of retaliation. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the evidence shows that Primebank fired Gilster for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons— namely, her poor behavior at work and suspicious activity on her personal checking account at Primebank. Gilster made her initial internal complaint with Primebank regarding Strub’s sexual harassment on July 2, 2009. President and CEO of Primebank, Matthew Ahlers, and Ann Schulz, Vice President and human resources officer for Prime-bank, met with Gilster and determined her complaint was founded. On July 6, 2009, Ahlers and Schulz met with Strub, reprimanded him, and required him to attend sexual harassment training. On July 21, 2009, Gilster e-mailed Ahlers and Schulz, both of whom worked at Primebank’s Le Mars, Iowa, office, to inform them that Strub was avoiding her and giving work he previously would have assigned to her to other employees at the bank. See Gilster’s Trial Ex. 15 (docket no. 69-11). Gilster remarked that Strub’s behavior “fe[lt] like a slap in the face after being his assistant for a year and a half.” Id. On March 10, 2010, Gilster e-mailed Ahlers and Schulz to report that Strub had informed her, before she complained about his harassment, that she could become a salaried employee. However, when she inquired in December 2009 about the promotion, Strub told her that “it was against Primebanks [sic] policy” for her to be a salaried employee. See Gilster’s Trial Ex. 20 (docket no. 69-16). When Schulz and Ahlers met with Strub on March 16, 2010, to discuss Gilster’s March 10, 2010, e-mail, Schulz’s event log indicates that Strub “was very frustrated this was coming up again” and that Strub stated he “felt like a whipped dog the last time, and I’m not going through it again.” Joint Trial Ex. 2002 at 12 (docket no. 69-68). Gilster filed her first complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) on April 6, 2010. Primebank began monitoring Gilster’s and Strub’s work e-mail in April 2010 after receiving notice of Gilster’s complaint from the ICRC. Primebank’s legal counsel commenced an investigation of Gilster’s claim, including interviewing all Primebank employees, other than Gilster. Ann Schulz’s event log indicates that “bank counsel advised [employees] to alert Strub or Schulz, if any problems came up in the future regarding the Gilster situation.” Joint Trial Ex. 2002 at 17 (docket no. 69-68). At trial, Gilster’s counsel questioned Prime-bank employee Shelly Schlesser as to the precise “problems” employees were supposed to report: Q. And you were also told to forward e-mails or correspondence to Ann [Schulz] if you had issues with Mindy; right? A. Yes. Q. And they just wanted you forwarding any issues, any little mistake that you had; right? A. Right. Q. And let’s be clear. You weren’t instructed to send all e-mails between you and Mindy. You were just instructed to send e-mails that might show a problem with Mindy; correct? A. Yes. Of note, when Primebank employee Lois Ohlendorf e-mailed Schulz about a mistake Gilster made on a loan, Schulz replied, “Thanks, Lois. I’ll add this to my collection:).” Gilster’s Trial Ex. 76 (docket no. 69-58). Gilster filed this lawsuit on September 1, 2010. On December 27, 2010, Strub gave Gilster an “unsatisfactory” score on her annual performance review, and Prime-bank denied Gilster an annual pay raise in December 2010. Gilster filed a second complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on January 26, 2011. On February 8, 2011, Gilster discovered Primebank was monitoring her e-mails. She became upset and announced her discovery to other employees at Primebank’s Sioux City branch. There was conflicting testimony at trial about whether Gilster’s announcement was disruptive and rude and whether she swore in front of other employees. On February 7, 2011, Schulz received notice of Gilster’s second ICRC complaint. See Joint Trial Ex. 2002 at 35 (docket no. GO-GS). Also on February 7, 2011, Schulz and Ahlers traveled to Primebank’s Sioux City branch and issued Gilster a written warning, stating, “Your behavior on Thursday, February 3, 2011, was unacceptable. You were loud, rude, and disruptive.” See Gilster’s Trial Ex. 41 (docket no. 69-36). On February 8, 2011, Schulz and Ahlers learned that Gilster, following the written warning, sent text messages to other employees, asking if the other employees had told Schulz and Ahlers that she shouted and swore on February 3, 2011. Schulz and Ahlers believed Gilster’s text messages “misrepresented” Gilster’s discussion with Schulz and Ahlers regarding her “disruptive behavior” and that the text messages “denied Gilster’s own misconduct.” See Joint Trial Ex. 2002 at 36 (docket no. 69-68). On February 10, 2011, Primebank terminated Gilster’s employment. In the written letter of termination, signed by bank president Ahlers, Ahlers indicated that one of the reasons for Gilster’s termination was her poor behavior, particularly the February 3, 2011, incident and the subsequent text messages. Abler noted, “This behavior is representative of what we have been counseling you about for quite some time and is the type of behavior that contributed to your recent unfavorable employment evaluation.” Gilster’s Trial Ex. 45 (docket no. 69-39). As an additional reason for Gilster’s termination, Ahlers cited suspicious transactions on Gilster’s personal checking account at Primebank, including excessive overdrafts. Id. I conclude, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [Gilster],” that a “reasonable jury could have found,” see Heaton, 534 F.3d at 887, that Strub and Primebank retaliated against Gilster because she complained about Strub’s harassment and about retaliation against her. As to defendant Strub, a reasonable jury could find that several of Strub’s actions towards Gilster constituted materially adverse employment actions and were motivated by retaliatory animus. Strub gave Gilster an unsatisfactory performance evaluation at her annual review in December 2010. See Gilster’s Trial Ex. 30 (docket no. 69-25). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals “has often held ‘[a]n unfavorable evaluation is actionable only where the employer subsequently uses the evaluation as a basis to detrimentally alter the terms or conditions of the recipient’s employment.’ ” Higgins v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 578, 586 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting Turner v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 688, 696 (8th Cir.2005)), abrogated on other grounds, Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1058 (8th Cir.2011). That precise situation occurred here, as Primebank cited Strub’s unfavorable evaluation as a reason for terminating Gilster in February 2011. See Gilster’s Trial Ex. 45 (docket no. 69-39). Thus, Strub’s unsatisfactory evaluation constituted a materially adverse action against Gilster. A reasonable jury could have inferred that retaliatory animus motivated Strub’s review: for one, the timing of the evaluation suggests a causal connection between Gilster’s protected activity and the poor evaluation. Gilster filed her complaint with the ICRC in April 2010 and filed this case in September 2010 — then, at her annual review in December, the next available opportunity for Strub to review her, she received an unsatisfactory evaluation. Furthermore, Strub’s attitude in March 2010, after he learned of Gilster’s complaining e-mail, suggests retaliatory animus, as he “was very frustrated this was coming up again” and stated he “felt like a whipped dog the last time, and I’m not going through it again.” Joint Trial Ex. 2002 at 12 (docket no. 69-68). The jury could have reasonably inferred that Strub was tired of Gilster’s complaints and, accordingly, retaliated against her. Additionally, Strub’s refusal to consider Gilster for a salaried position in December 2009 after she complained of sexual harassment also constitutes a materially adverse action. See White, 548 U.S. at 64, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (noting that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision “is not limited to,” but includes, “discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment” such as “failing to promote” or “a significant change in benefits” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Of course, where “there [is] no promotional opportunity available ..., no reasonable employee would ... f[i]nd [an employer’s] failure to promote ... to be materially adverse.” See Moore v. Forrest City Sch. Dist., 524 F.3d 879, 885 (8th Cir.2008). Gilster testified that, before she complained of harassment, Strub indicated that she could become a salaried employee. Bank president Ablers and vice president Schulz testified that Gilster was never eligible to become salaried, but Strub admitted at trial that he previously told Gilster it was a “possibility” that she could become salaried. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Gilster, a reasonable jury could have inferred that when Gilster inquired about a salaried position in December 2009, and Strub informed her that such a position was not possible, he did so to retaliate against Gilster for her complaints of harassment and retaliation against him in July 2009. As to defendant Primebank, a reasonable jury could have found that Prime-bank terminated Gilster in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation. The defendants are certainly correct that the temporal proximity of Gilster’s first complaint with the ICRC in April 2010, and the filing of this case in September 2010, in relation to her termination on February 10, 2011, does not give rise to a strong inference of retaliation. Importantly, however, as Gilster points out, Primebank received notice on February 7, 2011, of Gilster’s second ICRC complaint, which alleged additional incidents of retaliation, and, only four days later, Primebank terminated her employment. The close temporal proximity, a mere four days, between Gilster’s second ICRC complaint and the defendants’ termination of her employment gives rise to an inference of retaliatory animus. See Tyler, 628 F.3d at 986 (noting that timing may give rise to inference of retaliation). Furthermore, Gilster’s theory of causation at trial did not hinge on temporal proximity alone. Gilster showed that the defendants, after they learned of Gilster’s first ICRC complaint, began monitoring Gilster and requested that other employees report any mistakes Gilster made on the job. A reasonable inference may be drawn, from Primebank’s Orwellian monitoring of Gilster and from Schulz’s “collection” of Gilster’s “problems,” that the defendants were looking for a reason to fire Gilster because they were tired of her complaints of retaliation. Gilster produced strong evidence to rebut the defendants’ proferred legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her employment. As to the defendants’ argument that they terminated Gilster for poor, disruptive bebeGilster produced evidence that, in the two years she worked at Primebank before she filed her ICRC complaints and this federal case, she received favorable employee evaluations. See Gilster’s Trial Exs. 1, 18 (docket no. 69-1, 69-14). ReRethe defendants’ argument that they fired Gilster for suspicious activity on her personal checking account, including overdrafts, Gilster showed that other employees with account overdrafts had not been terminated. The defendants produced evidence that they reported Gilster to law enforcement for the crime of “check kiting” on her Primebank account, but Gilster showed that she had never been charged with any offense arising from checking activity at Primebank. The jury could reasonably infer, from Gilster’s evidence rebutting the defendants’ alleged reasons for terminating Gilster, that the defendants’ proferred explanations were, in fact, pretext for the real reason: they fired her in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (“[Ojnce the employer’s justification has been eliminated, discrimination may well be the most likely alternative explanation, especially since the employer is in the best position to put forth the actual reason for its decision.”). Sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find in Gilster’s favor on her retaliation claim. Therefore, I deny the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on both Gilster’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims. 2. Judgment as a Matter of Law and Remittitur on Damages a. Punitive Damages The defendants renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law as to punitive damages and, in the alternative, move for remittitur of Gilster’s punitive damages based on Title VIPs statutory cap on damages for employers of Primebank’s size. Gilster sought punitive damages pursuant to Title VII only, as punitive damages are not available under the ICRA. See Baker v. John Morrell & Co., 382 F.3d 816, 827 (8th Cir.2004). The jury awarded Gilster $200,000 in punitive damages against Primebank on Gilster’s sexual harassment claim and $400,000 in punitive damages against Primebank on Gilster’s retaliation claim. The defendants maintain that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s punitive damages awards. Punitive damages are appropriate in a Title VII case if the plaintiff shows that the employer, in intentionally discriminating against the plaintiff, acted with “malice,” meaning evil motive or intent, or with “reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of [the plaintiff].” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 535, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999); accord Dominic v. DeVilbiss Air Power Co., 493 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir.2007); see also Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938, 952-53 (8th Cir.2010) (“Punitive damages are appropriate in a federal civil rights action when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). “The terms ‘malice’ or ‘reckless indifference’ pertain to the employer’s knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination.” Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118; accord Dominic, 493 F.3d at 974. To support an award of punitive damages, “an employer must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law to be liable in punitive damages.” Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118. “The malice or reckless indifference of employees serving in a managerial capacity and acting within the scope of their employment may be imputed to the employer.” E.E.O.C. v. Siouxland Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Assocs., L.L.P., 578 F.3d 921, 925 (8th Cir.2009). I first address the jury’s punitive damage award on Gilster’s retaliation claim. Primebank maintains that there was insufficient evidence at trial to show that bank president Matthew Ahlers acted with malice or reckless indifference to Gilster’s federally protected rights when he terminated Gilster. Again, in determining whether sufficient evidence existed to support an award of punitive damages, I view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in Gilster’s favor. At trial, Gilster’s counsel questioned Matthew Ahlers about whether he knew retaliation was illegal: “Are you aware that firing Ms. Gilster for making good-faith complaints about sexual harassment and retaliation is against the law?” Ahlers responded, “Yes.” Transcript of Ahlers’s Testimony at 113:1-4 (docket no. 63). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of an employer on punitive damages in a pregnancy discrimination case, explained that, where a managing employee “testified that she knew that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was illegal!,] [f]rom this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that [the managing employee] knew that she may be violating federal law by considering pregnancy as a factor in rejecting [plaintiffs] application for employment.” Siouxland, 578 F.3d at 926. Thus, judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages, in favor of the employer, is not appropriate where “evidence was presented to the jury that a managerial employee engaged in discrimination while knowing that federal law prohibited such discrimination.” See id. Here, Ahlers testified that he knew retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment or retaliation violated the law. A reasonable jury could infer from this evidence that Ahlers knew that he may have been violating federal law by firing Gilster in retaliation for her protected activity. Furthermore, Prime-bank does not appear to dispute that Ahlers, as Primebank’s president and CEO, served in a “managerial capacity” and “act[ed] within the scope of [his] employment” when he fired Gilster. See id. at 925-26 (finding that managing partner who fired employee was “indisputably a managerial employee acting within the scope of his employment”). Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of punitive damages against Prime-bank on Gilster’s retaliation claim. I need not reach the question of whether punitive damages are appropriate on Gilster’s sexual harassment claim because she cannot recover those damages, in any event, due to Title VII’s damages cap. Both parties agree that Gilster’s total punitive damages recovery should be capped at $50,000. Under Title VII, because Primebank has seventy-one employees, Gilster may recover a maximum total of $50,000 in both compensatory damages, excluding back pay, and punitive damages for her Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(A); Baker, 382 F.3d at 827; Black v. Pan Am. Labs., L.L.C., 646 F.3d 254, 264 (5th Cir.2011) (“Title VII’s damages cap applies to each party in an action, not to each claim.”). While Title VII caps both compensatory and punitive damages, the ICRA, though it does not permit punitive damages, “does not include a cap for compensatory damages.” Baker, 382 F.3d at 827. The defendants do not dispute that I may allocate Gilster’s compensatory damages to her ICRA claims and her punitive damages to her Title VII claims, thereby maximizing her recovery. See Defendant’s Brief at 26 (docket no. 82-1) (“Thus, (assuming that the emotional distress recovery is ultimately awarded under the state statutory claim), the most that plaintiff can recover for punitive damages is $50,000.00.”). Thus, Gilster may recover $50,000 in punitive damages under Title VII for both her sexual harassment and retaliation claims. Because I have determined that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s award of punitive damages on Gilster’s retaliation claim, and those punitive damages far exceed the $50,000 maximum that Gilster may recover, I need not reach the question of whether punitive damages were appropriate on Gilster’s sexual harassment claim. Therefore, I deny the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to punitive damages, but I grant the defendant’s motion for remittitur and reduce Gilster’s punitive damages award to $50,000. I allocate Gilster’s punitive damages to her Title VII claims and her compensatory damages to her ICRA claims. b. Emotional Distress Damages The defendants also move for judgment as a matter of law as to future emotional distress damages, arguing that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to award Gilster any future emotional distress damages. Additionally, and in the alternative, the defendants argue that Gilster’s past and future emotional distress damages are excessive and move for remittitur of these damages. “A plaintiff is entitled to damages for emotional distress when there is evidence of actual emotional distress caused by an employer’s discriminatory acts.... ” See Christensen v. Titan Distribution, Inc., 481 F.3d 1085, 1096 (8th Cir. 2007). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that, “to support a claim for emotional distress, the claim ‘must be supported by competent evidence of genuine injury.’ ” Heaton, 534 F.3d at 891 (quoting Forshee v. Waterloo Indus., Inc., 178 F.3d 527, 531 (8th Cir.1999)). “A plaintiffs own testimony can be sufficient for a finding of emotional distress, and medical evidence is not necessaryf,]” though “[t]he plaintiffs testimony must offer specific facts as to the nature of his claimed emotional distress and the causal connection to [the employer’s] alleged violations.” Christensen, 481 F.3d at 1097 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Gilster testified that her job at Primebank, before the sexual harassment and retaliation began, gave her a great sense of self-worth and satisfaction. Gilster explained that Strub’s sexual harassment made her feel humiliated and degraded. She stated that Strub’s sexual harassment brought up memories from her childhood, when her uncle sexually abused her. Gilster testified that she became anxious and depressed, and she sought medical help from Elizabeth Pratt, an advanced registered nurse practitioner, beginning in August 2008. Pratt prescribed her medicine for anxiety and depression, which Gilster continues to take. Gilster gained approximately thirty pounds between July 2009 and July 2010. Gilster testified that Strub and Primebank’s retaliation made her feel embarrassed, alienated, and extremely stressed after she lost her job. After she was fired, she began to drink heavily and cut herself. Though she testified that she has since stopped drinking, she explained that she still cuts herself. She testified that she does not anticipate that she will be able to go off her medication in the near future. She also testified that she expects she will suffer emotional distress for the rest of her life due to the sexual harassment and retaliation she experienced at Primebank. Elizabeth Pratt, who treated Gilster for anxiety and depression, testified that, based on her treatment of Gilster, she believed Gilster would continue to suffer in the future from anxiety and depression. Gilster’s husband, Brent, testified that Strub’s harassment reminded Gilster of the sexual abuse that she suffered in her youth, and that she became distant and found it hard to be intimate with her husband after Strub sexually harassed her. He explained that Gilster took immense pride in her job in the banking industry and that her self-worth plummeted when she lost her job at Primebank. He stated that he thought Gilster would, in the future, continue to feel the emotional effects of the harassment and retaliation, and he did not think Gilster would be able to go off her medications any time soon, as he feared she would turn back to alcohol if she did. First, as to whether sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to award Gilster future emotional distress damages, I find that the testimony of Gilster, her husband, and Nurse Practitioner Pratt, all of whom testified about “specific facts as to the nature of [Gilster’s] claimed emotional distress and the causal connection to [Strub and Primebank’s] alleged violations,” see Christensen, 481 F.3d at 1097, was more than sufficient to provide “competent evidence of genuine injury” in the future, see Heaton, 534 F.3d at 891; accord O’Neal v. Ferguson Constr. Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1257 (10th Cir.2001) (concluding, in race discrimination and retaliation case, that testimony of plaintiff and his wife “enabled the jury to reasonably determine that Mr. O’Neal would suffer future emotional distress,” where plaintiff testified about “inability to sleep and loss of appetite” and plaintiffs wife “corroborated [plaintiffs] statements, testifying that [plaintiffs] condition had gotten worse since his termination” and that he was “more worried and very unhappy”). Thus, I deny the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law as to future emotional distress damages. Second, I address whether the jury’s awards of past and future emotional distress damages were excessive. “[A] district court should order remittitur only when the verdict is so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. A verdict is not considered excessive unless there is ‘plain injustice’ or a ‘monstrous’ or ‘shocking’ result.” Eich, 350 F.3d at 763 (citations and some internal- quotation marks omitted). Specifically, “[a]wards for pain and suffering are highly subjective and the assessment of damages is within the sound discretion of the jury, especially when the jury must determine how to compensate an individual for an injury not easily calculable in economic terms.” Christensen, 481 F.3d at 1097 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). On Gilster’s sexual harassment claim, the jury awarded $20,000 for past emotional distress and $60,000 for future emotional distress. On her retaliation claim, the jury awarded $20,000 for past emotional distress and $140,000 for future emotional distress. The defendants argue that “th[e] record does not establish the existence of a genuine injury[,]” Defendants’ Brief at 35 (docket no. 82-1), and they urge that the medical records do not corroborate the extent of the anxiety and depression to which Gilster testified. I disagree. Gilster presented evidence of genuine injury through her own testimony, her husband, and Nurse Practitioner Pratt. Their testimony indicated that Gilster suffered and will continue to suffer anxiety and depression, as a result of the sexual harassment and retaliation she experienced. She takes medicine for anxiety and depression. Strub humiliated and degraded Gilster, often in front of her coworkers. Strub’s harassment recalled painful memories from Gilster’s childhood. Gilster gained a significant amount of weight during the time that Strub and Primebank retaliated against her. After she was fired, she developed a drinking problem and began cutting herself. She lost her sense of self-worth. The evidence here is certainly sufficient to establish “genuine injury” as a result of sexual harassment and retaliation. I reject the defendants’ argument that I must reduce Gilster’s damages because the medical records did not corroborate the extent of emotional distress to which she and other witnesses testified. For one, “medical evidence is not necessary” to support an award of emotional distress damages, see Christensen, 481 F.3d at 1097, though, of course, Gilster presented medical evidence in the form of Nurse Practitioner Pratt’s testimony. Furthermore, it was the jury’s role to reconcile the evidence in this case, and I do not disturb the jury’s conclusions where, as here, there was sufficient evidence from Gilster, her husband, and Nurse Practitioner Pratt for the jury to issue the emotional distress awards it did. Given the evidence at trial, the jury’s award of $80,000 in emotional distress damages for sexual harassment and $160,000 for retaliation does not “shock the conscience of the court.” See Eich, 350 F.3d at 763. The cold record does not adequately reflect the devastating loss of self-esteem and self-worth that Gilster felt, as a result of the sexual harassment and retaliation she suffered. In Circuit Judge Donald Lay’s powerful words, sexual harassment “destroy[s] the human psyche as well as the human spirit.” See Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3d 1287, 1304 (8th Cir.1997). Furthermore, I was not at all surprised that the jury awarded significantly higher emotional distress damages on Gilster’s retaliation claim than her sexual harassment claim. Gilster had enormous self-esteem wrapped up in her dream position as a bank credit administrator. The jury could have easily determined, on the evidence presented here, that Prime-bank’s illegal retaliatory termination created an unbounded wellspring of emotional distress that dramatically crushed Gilster’s personal and emotional sense of well-being and self-worth. World-renowned American psychologist Abraham Maslow wrote, “Healthy self-esteem is based not only upon approval from others, but also upon actual achievements and successes and upon the realistic self-confidence which ensues.” Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology op Being 221 (3d ed.1999). The defendants, by illegally discharging Gilster, cruelly deprived her not only of the approval that comes with doing one’s job well, but also of the opportunity for personal achievement and success — so essential to a positive view of one’s self-worth. Additionally, although comparisons to other cases are, ultimately, of limited use because every case is different, I note that the jury’s awards here, given the evidence of Gilster’s anxiety and depression, are not outside the heartland of awards the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed in other discrimination cases. See Eich, 350 F.3d at 763 (collecting cases). I find that the jury’s total award of emotional distress damages of $240,000 was well “within [its] sound discretion,” see Christensen, 481 F.3d at 1097, and certainly is not “grossly excessive,” see Eich, 350 F.3d at 763. Thus, I deny the defendants’ motion for remittitur on Gilster’s emotional distress damages. c. Back Pay and Medical Expenses The defendants also move for remittitur on Gilster’s back pay and medical expenses. The jury awarded Gilster back pay and medical expenses twice, once on her sexual harassment claim and once on her retaliation claim. The parties agree, as do I, that Gilster should recover only once for back pay and medical expenses. Therefore, I reduce Gilster’s back pay to $28,820.12 and her past medical expenses to $1,330.49. The parties dispute, however, whether the entire amount of the back pay award is recoverable. Gilster requested, and the jury awarded, $28,820.12 in back pay, a sum that included paid sick leave, paid vacation, and paid holidays. Gilster’s Trial Ex. 54 (docket no. 69-46). The defendants argue that permitting Gilster to recover for sick days, paid vacation, and paid holidays is double compensation, as these days have no monetary value and because Gilster “always used all of her sick days [and vacation].” I disagree. Back pay must be “fashion[ed] ... in order to make the Title VII victim whole.” See E.E.O.C. v. Dial Corp., 469 F.3d 735, 743 (8th Cir.2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As a Primebank employee, Gilster received not just her wages, but also vacation, sick leave, and holidays. The defendants’ retaliation deprived her of these benefits. To approach the goal of making Gilster whole — to the extent this can be accomplished through monetary damages — she should recover the value of these days as part of her back pay. See Hartley v. Dillard’s, Inc., 310 F.3d 1054, 1062 (8th Cir.2002) (ADEA case affirming back pay award that included vacation days); Rasimas v. Mich. Dep’t of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 626 (6th Cir.1983) (Title VII case considering appropriate back pay and concluding, “Sick leave, vacation pay, pension benefits and other fringe benefits the claimant would have received but for discrimination should also be awarded.”). The defendants, other than arguing that sick days, vacation, and holidays have no value, do not object to the way in which Gilster calculated the value of the sick days, vacation, and holidays, and I note that Gilster appropriately subtracted the value of any leave and holidays at her new job from the back pay she sought from Primebank. See Dial, 469 F.3d at 744 (“[T]he well established rule for calculating back pay [is] the difference between the amount the claimant would have earned absent the discrimination and the amount of wages actually earned during the relevant period.”). Therefore, I deny the defendants’ request to deduct from Gilster’s back pay award the value of sick days, vacation, and holidays. The defendants also assert that Gilster’s back pay should be reduced, based on their “after acquired evidence” defense. See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 362, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995)- (explaining that “[o]nce an employer learns about employee wrongdoing that would lead to a legitimate discharge, we cannot require the employer to ignore the information .... ” and holding that an employee’s back pay, in such circumstances, “should be calculated] ... from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the new information was discovered”). The defendants asserted at trial that they would have fired Gilster anyway in September 2011, when they discovered that she was using her work e-mail to contact her attorneys to build this case. Thus, the defendants argued that Gilster’s back pay recovery should be limited to the period from February 10, 2011, the date of Gilster’s termination, to September 2011, when they would have, allegedly, terminated her employment anyway. The jury rejected this defense at trial, but the defendants contend that the evidence that they would have fired Gilster in September 2011 was “unrebutted.” Contrary to the defendants’ assertions, however, Gilster produced ample evidence that other Primebank employees used work e-mail for personal purposes and were never fired as a result. Anticipating this response, the defendants urge that Gilster’s “[cjounsel was able to confuse the issue by offering evidence that other employees used Bank computers to send personal email. This was never the point of the defendants’ defense.” Defendants’ Brief at 36 n. 19 (docket no. 82-1). It was the defendants’ burden, not Gilster’s, to elucidate the “point” of their own defense. There was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to reject the defendants’ defense, an