Court of Appeals upholds six-figure sexual harassment verdict

The plaintiff in this case sued her employer, a dentist, for sexual harassment. The jury ruled in her favor, awarding her $10,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirms the verdict.

The case is Champagne v. Columbia Dental, P.C., a summary order issued on September 18. The appellate ruling and trial court decision on the post-trial motions do not detail the nature of the harassment evidence at trial, but the trial court in its post-trial ruling did summarize the allegations in the complaint (Stanko was the employer-dentist):

Stanko threw and punched items in the office, and yelled and cursed during the course of Plaintiff's employment. He also addressed Plaintiff as his ‘hot assistant’ and his ‘daytime wife,’ and massaged her shoulder several times. He engaged in arguably misogynistic conduct, namely forcefully grabbing her hand to force a tube into a patient's mouth, and jamming a drill into her hand, puncturing her glove, and angrily telling her to hold it in place. Plaintiff complained to district manager Ochrim who did not address or attempt to remedy the issue. Plaintiff told Ochrim that because of Stanko's behavior, she could not go back to work with him. In response, Ochrim advised Plaintiff that if she did not work with Stanko then she would not have a job. On another occasion, Plaintiff complained and Ochrim focused on her parental status responding, ‘ok, but it's a job’ and ‘you do have kids.’ Plaintiff mentioned to other employees that because of Stanko's conduct her ‘anxiety was through the roof.’

The trial court noted that, while each incident, by itself, might not have been enough to violate Title VII, in the aggregate plaintiff has a hostile work environment claim. Remember, sexual harassment cases require the trial court and the jury to view the workplace environment as a whole in determining whether the plaintiff endured sexual harassment.

On appeal, the dental practice argues that the trial court made bad evidentiary rulings that compel a new trial. Central to the appeal is Exhibit 5, consisting of medical records from plaintiff's visit with a nurse practitioner, whom plaintiff consulted for anxiety. It is quite difficult to get a new trial on the basis of an evidentiary challenge on appeal. Trial judges have significant discretion to rule on evidence, and nobody gets a perfect trial.

Defendant argues that under Rule 26, plaintiff failed to identify the nurse as an expert or provided a summary of the facts and opinions upon which she would testify. Not quite, says the Court of Appeals (Raggi, Lohier and Carney), which rules that the nurse was called as a trial witness solely to authenticate the medical records. Under the hearsay rules, you can admit medical records at trial if someone tells the jury the records are authentic. The nurse was not called as an expert witness; she only testified to show the records were legitimate.

Stanko threw and punched items in the office, and yelled and cursed during the course of Plaintiff's employment. See [Dkt. 15 at ¶¶ 19-20]. He also addressed Plaintiff as his ‘hot assistant’ and his ‘daytime wife,’ and massaged her shoulder several times. He engaged in arguably misogynistic conduct, namely forcefully grabbing her hand to force a tube into a patient's mouth, and jamming a drill into her hand, puncturing her glove, and angrily telling her to hold it in place. Id. at ¶¶ 21-22 & 30. Plaintiff complained to district manager Ochrim who did not address or attempt to remedy the issue. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41. Plaintiff told Ochrim that because of Stanko's behavior, she could not go back to work with him. In response, Ochrim advised Plaintiff that if she did not work with Stanko then she would not have a job. Id. ¶ at 29. On another occasion, Plaintiff complained and Ochrim focused on her parental status responding, ‘ok, but it's a job’ and ‘you do have kids.’ Id. at ¶ 43. Plaintiff mentioned to other employees that because of Stanko's conduct her ‘anxiety was through the roof.’ Id. at ¶ 32.

Champagne v. Columbia Dental, P.C., No. 3:18-CV-01390 (VLB), 2022 WL 168967, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 19, 2022)