Turyna v. Martam Construction Co., Inc.

83 F.3d 178 (7th Cir. 1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P went to work for D as a truck driver from January 1986 until September 26, 1989, when he was fired. P filed this lawsuit against D claiming (1) that D owed him overtime pay under the FLSA and (2) that his firing violated the public policy of Illinois and FLSA because it was retaliatory in certain respects. The court entered a judgment as a matter of law on a supplemental claim of breach of an oral contract, but the overtime and retaliatory discharge claims were allowed to proceed to the jury. The case was submitted to the jury on a form that wasn't quite a general verdict form, but it wasn't special verdicts under 49(a) or a general verdict with interrogatories under Rule 49(b) either. When the jury returned with its verdict, the jury checked the lines 'for plaintiff' with respect to all three defendants on Count I, which was labeled 'Fair Labor Standards Act.' It checked the lines 'against plaintiff' for all three defendants for both 'Count II--Retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act,' and 'Count II--Retaliation under Public Policy of Illinois.' In the section labeled 'Damages' the jury filled in the amount of $3,109.22 as compensatory damages, which it identified as unpaid overtime wages. Part (b) of the Damages section asked the jury whether it wished to award the plaintiff punitive damages under Count II, and if so, in what amount. However, upon turning the page, the jury reached a new 'Count II--Retaliatory Discharge under FLSA' section. This time, it checked 'yes' for D, and wrote in $35,618.01; it checked 'no' for the other two defendants. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, awarding P $3,109.22 in compensatory damages, liquidated damages of $3,109.22 as required by the FLSA, and punitive damages against D in the amount of $35,618.01. D filed a timely post-trial motion under Rule 59(e), seeking to amend the judgment on Count II to set aside the award of punitive damages. The court denied that motion, and this appeal followed.