GREENV~1 - IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-30530 No. 00-31118 CATHRYN GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, versus THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. CATHRYN GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND, ET AL., Defendants, THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana March 15, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Cathryn Green ("Green") alleges that, following a failed consensual relationship with Dr. Donald Richardson ("Richardson"), her supervisor and the Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Tulane University (" Tulane"), Richardson harassed her because she refused to continue having a casual sexual relationship with him. Green filed suit against Richardson and Tulane, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII and other causes of action under
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Louisiana law. Green sought compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, and punitive damages. The district court granted a partial summary judgment motion dismissing all of Green's claims against Richardson and her intentional infliction of emotional distress and respondeat superior claims against Tulane. At the close of the evidence, the district court granted Tulane's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that Green was not entitled to punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Green and awarded her $300,000 in compensatory damages. The court affirmed the advisory jury's back pay award of $124,673 and awarded $4,287 in front pay. Final judgment was entered on December 8, 1999. On March 30, 2000, the court denied Tulane's post-judgment Rule 50 motion and its motion for a new trial regarding the jury verdict. On August 8, 2000, the district court entered a judgment awarding $302,285 in attorneys' fees. Thereafter, on August 18, 2000, the Clerk of Court taxed costs in the amount of $28, 929.29. On October 11, 2000, the district court awarded an additional $98 in costs. In this appeal, Green challenges the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law, which dismissed her claim for punitive damages. Tulane appeals the court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the court erred in several ways. Tulane submits that the harassment endured by Green was not sufficiently severe or pervasive. Moreover, Tulane argues that harassment arising out of personal animosity is not based on sex and is, therefore, not actionable under Title VII. Tulane further asserts that Green suffered no tangible employment action. It also maintains that the alleged retaliatory actions took place before Green complained of the harassment, and thus, there was no causal connection between Green's engaging in protected activity and the actions taken against her. Tulane further argues that the court's award of front pay, back pay, and attorneys' fees
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 18

GREENV~1 - IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online