In a striking turn of events, a federal appeals court has annulled a substantial $366.2 million verdict against FedEx, delivered in a case where a Black sales manager, Jennifer Harris, alleged wrongful termination and retaliation for accusing her supervisor of racial discrimination. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, situated in New Orleans, declared that Harris was not entitled to the $365 million punitive damages granted by a Houston jury in October 2022.
Despite acknowledging evidence supporting Harris’ retaliation claim, the appeals court drastically reduced her damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience from $1.16 million to $248,620. FedEx, based in Memphis, Tennessee, expressed confidence in its actions regarding Harris’ termination and welcomed the court’s decision to slash the damages.
Harris, with over 12 years of service at FedEx, first as a sales representative and later as a district sales manager, was terminated in January 2020. She attributed her dismissal to her complaints about a white female supervisor who had allegedly provided her with a negative performance review and attempted to demote her.
The appeals court, however, contended that Harris failed to meet the demanding burden set by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which necessitates proving that FedEx acted with malice or reckless indifference toward her. The court emphasized the importance of demonstrating the employer’s subjective intent for punitive damages. According to Circuit Judge Cory Wilson, the evidence suggested that the supervisor viewed Harris’ discipline as a response to insubordination, not as retaliation for her grievances.
This legal development marks a significant shift in one of the largest workplace bias or retaliation cases involving a single employee in the United States. Harris’ lawyers have yet to respond to requests for comments.
The case, officially titled Harris v. FedEx Corporate Services Inc, was heard in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals under docket number 23-20035. The ruling showcases the complexities of workplace discrimination litigation and the critical importance of establishing intent in pursuing punitive damages.
