Faisal Khalaf v. Ford Motor Co.


RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0285p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FAISAL G. KHALAF, PH.D. ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, │ │ > Nos. 19-1435/1468 v. │ │ │ FORD MOTOR COMPANY; BENNIE FOWLER; JAY ZHOU, │ Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:15-cv-12604—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge. Argued: May 6, 2020 Decided and Filed: August 31, 2020 Before: GUY, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Sarah E. Harrington, GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Thomas G. Hungar, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Sarah E. Harrington, GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, Carol A. Laughbaum, Raymond J. Sterling, STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Thomas G. Hungar, Jacob T. Spencer, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C., Elizabeth P. Hardy, Thomas J. Davis, KIENBAUM, HARDY, VIVIANO, PELTON & FORREST, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellees/Cross- Appellants. Nos. 19-1435/1468 Khalaf v. Ford Motor Co. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves claims of national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Mich. Comp. Laws 37.2101 et seq., and racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The claims were brought by Faisal G. Khalaf, Ph.D., who is of Lebanese descent, against Ford Motor Company, his former employer, and Bennie Fowler and Jay Zhou, his former supervisors at Ford. Specifically, Dr. Khalaf contends that, he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his race or national origin, and that defendants illegally retaliated against him, after he engaged in protected activities, by demoting him, placing him on a “Performance Enhancement Plan” (PEP), and ultimately terminating his employment. The jury found that (1) Dr. Khalaf was neither demoted nor terminated by Ford because of his race or national origin; (2) neither Ford as a corporate entity nor Zhou subjected him to a hostile work environment, but Dr. Khalaf’s subordinates at Ford had done so (based on national origin or race), and so had Fowler (based on national origin, but not race); and (3) Dr. Khalaf was subjected to retaliatory demotion by Ford and Fowler, retaliatory placement on a PEP by Zhou, and retaliatory termination by Ford alone, but was not subjected to retaliatory placement on a PEP by Fowler or Ford or retaliatory termination by Fowler or Zhou. For the collective actions of all defendants, the jury awarded Dr. Khalaf $1.7 million in pension and retirement losses and $100,000 in emotional-distress damages. For the actions of Ford only, the jury awarded Dr. Khalaf $15 million in punitive damages. The district court granted Ford’s motion for remittitur of punitive damages but denied all of defendants’ other post- verdict motions, including motions for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). As to remittitur, the district ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals