The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to read as shown… v. City of Syracuse UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2 - - - - -…

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to read as shown above.
09-3772-cv(L)
Lore v. City of Syracuse
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2
- - - - - - 3
August Term, 2010 4
(Argued: November 19, 2010 Final Submission: December 7, 2010 Decided: February 2, 2012) 5
Docket Nos. 09-3772-cv(L), -4206-cv(XAP) 6
_________________________________________________________ 7
THERESE LORE, 8
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 9
- v. - 10
CITY OF SYRACUSE, 11
Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 12
CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN 13
FALGE in his individual and official capacity; FIRST DEPUTY CHIEF DANIEL 14
BOYLE in his individual and official capacity; DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT 15
TASSONE in his individual and official capacity; CITY OF SYRACUSE 16
MAYOR ROY BERNARDI in his individual and official capacity; 17
LIEUTENANT MIKE RATHBUN in his individual and official capacity; 18
CAPTAIN MIKE KERWIN in his individual and official capacity; RICK GUY, 19
CITY CORPORATION COUNSEL, in his individual and official capacity; 20
MICHAEL LEMM, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE, in his 21
individual and official capacity, 22
Defendants-Cross-Appellees.*
23
_________________________________________________________ 24

-- 1 of 78 --

2
Before: KEARSE, SACK, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges. 1
Appeal from so much of a judgment of the United States District Court for the 2
Northern District of New York following a jury trial before David N. Hurd, Judge, as orders defendant 3
City of Syracuse to pay plaintiff $417,955.34 in damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for retaliation 4
against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 5
state law, for making complaints of gender discrimination; cross-appeal from so much of the judgment 6
as dismisses plaintiff's other claims against the City and the individual defendants and denies plaintiff 7
additional damages and fees. 8
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, conditionally affirmed in part, conditionally vacated 9
in part, and remanded. 10
A.J. BOSMAN, Rome, New York (Bosman Law, Rome, New York, 11
on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. 12
KEVIN E. HULSLANDER, Syracuse, New York, (Gabrielle Mardany 13
Hope, Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, Syracuse, New York, on the 14
brief), for Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee and Defendants-Cross- 15
Appellees. 16
KEARSE, Circuit Judge: 17
Defendant City of Syracuse ("Syracuse" or the "City") appeals from so much of a 18
judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, David N. Hurd, 19
Judge, as orders the City to pay plaintiff Therese Lore, a member of the Syracuse Police Department 20
("SPD" or the "Department"), a total of $417,955.34, including $167,955.34 in attorneys' fees and 21
costs, following a jury verdict (a) finding that the City, because of her complaints of gender 22
discrimination, retaliated against Lore in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title 23
VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law ("HRL"), N.Y. Exec. 24

-- 2 of 78 --

3
Law § 296 et seq., and (b) awarding her compensatory damages against the City totaling $250,000 1
for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and injury to her reputation as a result of the retaliation. On 2
appeal, the City contends principally that as a matter of law Lore was not entitled to damages for 3
injury to her reputation, that she did not prove that any emotional distress she suffered was caused by 4
acts found to have been performed by the City or its employees, that there were various errors in the 5
court's submission of the case to the jury, and that the damages awarded for emotional distress were 6
excessive. 7
Lore cross-appeals, principally challenging so much of the judgment as dismisses her 8
retaliation claims against individual defendants, dismisses her gender discrimination claims against 9
the City and the individual defendants, and denies her additional damages and attorneys' fees. She 10
contends principally that the district court erred (1) in having the jury decide whether defendant Rick 11
Guy was entitled to qualified immunity, in failing to rule that he was not entitled to such immunity, 12
and, given the jury's findings that Guy had intentionally retaliated against Lore and caused her injuries 13
totaling $250,000, in not awarding her that amount in addition to the $250,000 awarded against the 14
City; (2) in granting summary judgment dismissing her gender discrimination claims; (3) in failing 15
to impose sanctions on defendants for noncompliance with discovery orders; and (4) in failing to 16
award higher attorneys' fees. Lore also contends that she is entitled to a new trial on her retaliation 17
claims against defendants Daniel Boyle and Mike Kerwin on the ground that the court improperly 18
excluded evidence relevant to those claims. 19
For the reasons discussed in Part II below, we conclude that the City's appeal-- 20
considered without reference to any relief to which Lore may be entitled on her cross-appeal-- 21
provides no basis for overturning the judgment against the City. For the reasons discussed in Part III 22

-- 3 of 78 --

4
below, we conclude that Lore's cross-appeal has merit only in its challenges to (A) the dismissal, on 1
qualified immunity grounds, of her HRL claim against Guy, and (B) the grant of summary judgment 2
dismissing her main discrimination claims under the HRL against the City and defendant Roy 3
Bernardi, and that Lore was entitled to trial of those discrimination claims. However, because of the 4
substantial overlap in the evidence relevant to Lore's retaliation claims against the City, which were 5
tried, and her main HRL discrimination claims, which were summarily dismissed, and considering 6
the intertwined nature of her retaliation claims against the City and those against Guy, we conclude 7
that a trial of the erroneously dismissed HRL discrimination claims alone could lead to an award of 8
damages that would be duplicative, in whole or in part, of the compensation Lore is awarded in the 9
present judgment. Accordingly, as set out in Part V below, we conclude that if there is to be a trial 10
of the HRL discrimination claims, that trial, in order to avoid an unjust outcome, must be combined 11
with a retrial of Lore's Title VII and HRL retaliation claims against the City and her HRL retaliation 12
claim against Guy. Because we see no other basis for disturbing the judgment against the City, and 13
because we recognize that Lore may prefer to forgo pursuit of the HRL discrimination claims and 14
retain the present award, we will only conditionally vacate so much of the judgment as dismisses the 15
pertinent HRL discrimination claims and as awards damages, costs, and fees against the City. The 16
vacatur will become effective if Lore elects to proceed to trial as indicated above. 17
I. BACKGROUND 18
As there has been a trial in this case, the following description includes facts that have 19
been established by the jury's verdict (see Trial Transcript ("Tr.") at 1247-55), as well as pertinent 20

-- 4 of 78 --

5
allegations in Lore's final amended complaint ("Complaint"). As Lore's claims of gender 1
discrimination were dismissed on summary judgment, the record with respect to those claims is 2
described in the light most favorable to Lore. 3
A. The Parties and Lore's Claims 4
At all times pertinent to this case, Lore was a member of SPD. She joined the 5
Department as an officer in 1978; she was promoted to the rank of sergeant in 1990. In January 1996, 6
then-Chief of Police Timothy Foody invited Lore to join his staff as SPD's public information officer 7
("PIO"), serving as liaison between the Department and the media, i.e., the spokesman for the 8
Department. 9
In May 1999, Lore was removed from her position as PIO. (See Complaint ¶ 21.) In 10
June, she was transferred to SPD's Technical Operations Section; in August she was transferred to the 11
Uniform Patrol Division. (See Complaint ¶ 22-23.) Lore, a member of the SPD force's union (the 12
"Union" or "Police Union") (see Complaint ¶ 88), whose collective bargaining agreement (or "CBA") 13
with the City prohibited the City from subjecting Union members to unlawful discrimination or 14
retaliation (see id. ¶ 89; Plaintiff's Exhibit ("PX") MMM, art. 2, ¶ 2.1(B)), filed a grievance with the 15
Union after she was removed from the PIO post. This grievance was settled in December 1999 ("1999 16
Settlement Agreement"), with the City agreeing, inter alia, to assign Lore to the Department's 17
Community Relations Division ("CRD") and to give her overtime assignments comparable to those 18
of other CRD sergeants. 19
In June 2000, Lore discovered that she was receiving fewer overtime assignments than 20
the other CRD sergeants. Routinely, SPD employees retrieved their biweekly paychecks from an 21

-- 5 of 78 --

6
open, uncovered box in the Department's Audit Budget and Control Office ("ABC Office")--a 1
common area accessible to all SPD personnel (see Complaint ¶ 39)--and an accountant-clerk in that 2
office testified that SPD employees routinely saw each others' checks as they searched for their own 3
(see, e.g., Tr. 414). Attached to each check was a pay stub that separately itemized the employee's 4
current and cumulative regular pay and overtime pay. Lore complained that the City had breached 5
the 1999 Settlement Agreement by not giving her equal overtime assignments; and to document the 6
disparity, she photocopied the three other CRD sergeants' pay stubs. An arbitration hearing was held 7
on the disparity-in-overtime claim in September 2000 ("September 2000 Arbitration Hearing"). 8
In the meantime, in July and August 2000, Lore filed verified complaints with the 9
EEOC against SPD, the City's mayor, and the Department's top officials, complaining principally of 10
gender discrimination and of retaliation for her complaints of gender discrimination. Her July EEOC 11
complaint alleged, inter alia, that those defendants, motivated by her gender, had caused her removal 12
from the PIO position without justification. It alleged that in retaliation for her complaints of 13
discrimination, they had subjected her to, inter alia, a series of job transfers to less desirable positions; 14
had assigned males who were junior to Lore in rank and seniority to positions that she had requested 15
and for which she was qualified; and had denied Lore perquisites, such as overtime work, an office 16
key, a computer, and a vehicle, that were given to males in comparable SPD positions. Her August 17
EEOC complaint alleged that Boyle had retaliated against her for filing the July EEOC complaint. 18
At the September 2000 Arbitration Hearing on Lore's complaint that the City had 19
breached the 1999 Settlement Agreement by depriving her of equal overtime assignments, Lore 20
offered into evidence the photocopies she had made of the other CRD sergeants' pay stubs to support 21
her claim of disparity. A City attorney threatened Lore with criminal prosecution for having copied 22

-- 6 of 78 --

7
the pay stubs but told her attorney that the City would "'forego [sic] criminal and administrative 1
charges'" against her if she dropped her EEOC complaints and grievances (Complaint ¶ 45). Lore 2
refused to withdraw her EEOC complaints and grievances, and on November 3, 2000, she was 3
charged administratively with personal use of a Department copier and was suspended for 10 days 4
without pay. (See Complaint ¶¶ 46-47, 55.) Defendant Rick Guy, Corporation Counsel for the City, 5
informed the news media that Lore had been suspended 6
and stated that she had copied "'checks'" and that her claims were intended "to 'divert attention from 7
the real issue,' which was 'her poor job performance.'" (Id. ¶ 48; see id. ¶¶ 84, 86.) 8
In the present lawsuit, commenced in December 2000 under Title VII and the HRL for 9
employment discrimination and retaliation, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her rights 10
under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the First Amendment, Lore asserted 11
principally that her removal from the PIO position was motivated by gender discrimination and that 12
she thereafter suffered retaliation because of her complaints to the Union and to the EEOC about 13
gender discrimination. Lore's Complaint, as finally amended, was filed in mid-2001 after she was 14
subjected to additional allegedly discriminatory treatment, including being deprived of her SPD 15
beeper, vehicle, and cell phone, being deprived of opportunities for overtime assignments and other 16
benefits, and receiving threatening and harassing messages on her home telephone answering machine 17
(see Complaint ¶¶ 53, 95). The Complaint asserted claims against the City, SPD, eight named 18
individuals in their personal and official capacities, and a "John Doe." The individuals, and their 19
positions at the times of their alleged actions, were: 20
Roy Bernardi, who, as Mayor of Syracuse in 1999 and 2000, was principally 21
alleged to have "ordered" then-Chief Foody to remove Lore from the PIO position 22
because Bernardi "believed that she had too much power or visibility with the police 23
department, and that women should be seen and not heard" (Complaint ¶ 32), and to 24

-- 7 of 78 --

8
have made false statements to the press about Lore in retaliation for her complaints of 1
discrimination (see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 57-60, 82); 2
John Falge, the Chief of SPD beginning in August 1999, who was alleged to 3
have been responsible for, inter alia, the training, supervision, and discipline of other 4
defendants and to have retaliated against Lore by orchestrating postcomplaint 5
criticisms of her job performance (see Complaint ¶¶ 5, 102); 6
Robert Tassone, a Deputy Chief of SPD, who was alleged to have been 7
responsible for, inter alia, the training, supervision, and discipline of other defendants 8
(see Complaint ¶ 7); 9
Daniel Boyle, First Deputy Chief of SPD, who the jury found had banned Lore 10
from the normally accessible ABC Office and imposed on her certain conditions not 11
applicable to others (see Tr. 1248), and who allegedly said he was imposing those 12
conditions "'since [Lore is] suing us'" (Complaint ¶ 36); 13
Mike Rathbun, an SPD lieutenant who was alleged to have denied Lore 14
requests for overtime work and to have told her that if she wanted such work she 15
should withdraw her claims of discrimination, and to have retaliated against Lore by 16
fabricating postcomplaint criticisms of her job performance (see Complaint ¶¶ 8, 51, 17
102); 18
Mike Kerwin, an SPD captain, who the jury found had threatened to give Lore 19
Miranda warnings or charge her with a crime (see Tr. 1250); 20
Rick Guy, the City's Corporation Counsel, who the jury found made negative 21
comments to news reporters about Lore in retaliation for her having complained of 22
discrimination (see Tr. 1248-50); 23
Michael Lemm, a retired SPD officer who Lore believed had left an 24
anonymous harassing message on her telephone answering machine (see Complaint 25
¶ 12); and 26
"John Doe," an alleged SPD officer who was another anonymous harassing 27
caller (see Complaint ¶ 13). 28
Against the City, the Complaint principally asserted claims for discrimination, 29
including creation of a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the HRL. 30
Against the individual defendants, the Complaint asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under 31
Title VII and the HRL, and § 1983 claims for violations of Lore's First Amendment, due process, and 32

-- 8 of 78 --

9
equal protection rights. It also asserted, inter alia, claims against all defendants for intentional 1
infliction of emotional distress and claims against Bernardi, Guy, and the City for defamation. 2
The case was originally assigned to Judge Howard G. Munson. It was reassigned to 3
Judge Hurd in 2008. 4
B. The Granting of Partial Summary Judgment 5
Following several years of discovery, the City and most of the individual defendants 6
moved for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint against them on several legal grounds. They 7
contended principally that Lore had no viable retaliation claim; they pointed out that she had not 8
suffered any decrease in rank or salary, and they argued that she therefore could not show that she had 9
suffered any materially adverse employment action. Lemm moved for summary judgment dismissing 10
the claims against him on the ground that there was no proof that he had made any allegedly harassing 11
telephone call. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated October 30, 2008, reported at 583 12
F.Supp.2d 345 ("Lore I"), the district court granted the motions in part and denied them in part. See 13
583 F.Supp.2d at 388-89. The court denied Lemm's motion insofar as it sought dismissal of Lore's 14
HRL claim against him, ruling that his opposition to that claim (i.e., his assertion that he was not the 15
person who made the harassing call) presented factual issues to be tried. See id. at 386-87. As to the 16
other defendants, the court granted their motions in large part, dismissing all of Lore's claims against 17
Falge, Tassone, and Rathbun, and dismissing most of her claims against the other individual 18
defendants, on various grounds. See id. at 388-89. 19
Lore's Title VII claims against the individual defendants were dismissed on the ground 20
that Title VII does not impose liability on individuals. See id. at 388. Although individuals may be 21

-- 9 of 78 --

10
held liable under the HRL, whose prohibitions against employment discrimination are similar to those 1
of Title VII, the court also dismissed Lore's HRL discrimination claims against the individual 2
defendants--as well as all of her HRL and Title VII discrimination claims against the City--on the 3
ground that, because her rank and pay had not been reduced when she was removed from the PIO 4
position, Lore had suffered no materially adverse employment action. See id. at 376-80. (See Part 5
III.B. below.) The court also ruled that all of Lore's claims against the City under Title VII for acts 6
prior to September 19, 1999--the date calculated to be 300 days prior to the initiation of her 7
complaints to the EEOC--were time-barred. And it dismissed all of Lore's state-law claims except 8
those alleging reputational injury and emotional distress resulting from retaliation in violation of the 9
HRL. See id. at 388-89. 10
Both sides moved for reconsideration of the summary judgment decision. The court 11
denied the City's motion on the ground that it was untimely. See Memorandum-Decision and Order 12
dated December 22, 2008, reported at 2008 WL 5378370 ("Lore II"), at *3. The court granted Lore's 13
motion for reconsideration of various aspects of Lore I but adhered to its original decisions. See id. 14
at *3-*11. 15
By the time of trial, the factual issues as to alleged retaliatory conduct had been 16
narrowed, and Lore's factual allegations against the remaining defendants were described as follows 17
in Court Exhibit 1 (as amended, see Tr. 23-24): 18
Boyle: "barring [Lore] from an office within the police department and 19
requiring her to submit internal memorandums"; 20
Guy and 21
Bernardi: "making negative comments about [Lore] to newspaper reporters"; 22
Kerwin: "reading [Lore] Miranda warnings and threatening her with criminal 23
charges"; 24

-- 10 of 78 --

11
Lemm: "leaving a harassing telephone message on [Lore's] answering 1
machine"; 2
The City: "offering to forgo criminal or administrative charges in exchange for 3
[Lore's] withdrawl [sic] of her complaints of discrimination"; 4
"suspending her for ten days and investigating her conduct." 5
Court Exhibit 1 also noted Lore's assertion that the City was liable for the retaliatory acts of the 6
officers of SPD (other than Lemm, who had retired prior to Lore's receipt of harassing telephone 7
messages) and for breach of the CBA provision prohibiting unlawful retaliation in response to 8
complaints of discrimination. 9
C. Lore's Evidence at Trial 10
At trial, Lore described her removal from her position as SPD's spokesman and 11
testified that she filed grievances with respect to that removal. She testified that defendants had 12
engaged in the conduct that was outlined in Court Exhibit 1, and she described the series of transfers 13
she endured from the PIO position to less desirable and less prestigious job assignments. 14
As to her claims against Boyle, Lore testified that after she complained of 15
discrimination, he banned her from SPD's ABC Office and required her, unlike other SPD employees, 16
to submit any requests for information in written memoranda. The accountant-clerk of the ABC 17
Office testified that after Lore photocopied other officers' pay stubs, Boyle, who was then SPD's First 18
Deputy Chief, came into that office and angrily "said something to the effect of, keep [Lore] the heck 19
out of here." (Tr. 409; see id. at 406-09, 411 ("if Teri Lore ever comes in this office again, throw her 20
the heck out"), 414-15.) The accountant-clerk testified that she had never before been instructed "to 21
give directions to police officers or sergeants." (Id. at 412.) She testified that a waist-high gate was 22
subsequently erected at the ABC Office door because SPD "wanted to make sure that from now on, 23

-- 11 of 78 --

12
there was some control of who just wandered into our office" (id. at 415), and that that gate became 1
"generally known as the Teri Lore gate" (id. at 426). 2
As to her claims against Kerwin, Lore testified that in November 2000, she reported 3
to Kerwin, a captain in SPD's training division, that she had aggravated an existing injury while she 4
was moving targets at SPD's firing range. She testified that Kerwin rejected her injury report and 5
threatened to give her Miranda warnings for attempting to file a false injury report--a response that 6
Lore attributed to her having filed EEOC complaints. (See Tr. 139-52.) 7
As to her claim against Lemm, Lore testified that she recognized the voice in one of 8
the harassing telephone messages she received as the voice of Lemm, with whom she had worked for 9
20 years. (See Tr. 157-59.) 10
As to her claims against Guy, Lore testified that when she was suspended for using a 11
Department copier after refusing to withdraw her claims of gender discrimination, Guy made untrue 12
and demeaning comments about her to the local media. She introduced, inter alia, newspaper articles 13
quoting him and a videotape of his comments to a local television station. These exhibits included 14
a two-paragraph article from the November 4, 2000 edition of a Syracuse newspaper, The Post- 15
Standard, which was headlined "City suspends sergeant accused of check copying." (PX BB 16
("November 2000 Post-Standard article" or "November article").) That article, on the front page of 17
the local news section, stated as follows: 18
A Syracuse police sergeant was suspended without pay for 10 days 19
Thursday after being accused of taking others' paychecks from the budget 20
office, copying them and using them as evidence in her grievance hearing, 21
Corporation Counsel Rick Guy said. 22
Sgt. Teri Lore, 43, had filed a grievance saying others are allowed more 23
overtime hours, he said. She was suspended after she turned in the copied 24
documents, Guy said. 25

-- 12 of 78 --

13
(Id.) An article in the December 30, 2000 edition of the same newspaper (PX EE ("December 2000 1
Post-Standard article")) reported the filing of Lore's present action and reported Guy's comments on 2
it. That article, headlined "Police sergeant sues for $4M," included the following paragraphs: 3
City Corporation Counsel Rick Guy denied Lore's allegations. He said 4
Lore has filed eight grievances against the department in the past 10 years. 5
"She has been denied at every single avenue she's gone down and 6
rightly so," Guy said. "The allegations in this thing are ridiculous. The whole 7
thing is an absolute waste of taxpayer money. It reeks of a frivolous and 8
meritless lawsuit. There was no discrimination because of her gender. She 9
wasn't doing her job." 10
(PX EE.) Guy's televised comments on Lore's lawsuit included the statement that "[t]his matter has 11
been adjudicated in the administrative side of [things] several times--each time in favor of the police 12
department. Frankly, we consider this to be a red herring--a distraction, if you will, from the real 13
issue here--which is her poor job performance." (PX FF.) 14
Lore testified that there was no basis for Guy's statements that she wasn't doing her job 15
or that her performance was poor. She testified that, prior to her copying of the pay stubs of three 16
other sergeants to document her claim that the City had breached its agreement with respect to 17
overtime assignments, she had never before been disciplined or even criticized for not doing her job. 18
(See Tr. 171-72.) 19
Q. So when Mr. Guy said you weren't doing your job, do you have any 20
idea what he is referring to? 21
A. I have no idea. 22
(Id. at 172.) Although in his opening statement defense counsel had argued that Guy could not 23
properly "be sued for publicly commenting on something that is truthful" (Tr. 86), the City introduced 24
no evidence at trial as to Lore's job performance except Guy's testimony that he had been told that 25

-- 13 of 78 --

14
Lore performed poorly in the PIO position (see, e.g., id. at 917 (that Lore had "temperature [sic] 1
tantrums with members of the media")). The only documentary evidence introduced as to Lore's job 2
performance was introduced by Lore: a selection of letters of praise and commendation that she had 3
received during the course of her career at SPD. Nearly two-thirds of the 20-odd letters that were 4
introduced had come from SPD's chief of police or a deputy chief or the office of the district attorney. 5
(See Tr. 181-82; PX NNN.) 6
Lore testified that her "reputation was spotless until" the appearance of the November 7
2000 Post-Standard article citing Guy. (Id. at 197.) Although she had copied only pay stubs, she 8
received "[n]egative" attention (Tr. 168-69) in the wake of that article reporting that she had been 9
suspended for "taking" and copying "others' paychecks" (PX BB (emphasis added)). She testified that 10
she was approached in public by people who asked "why would you copy people's checks?" or 11
"[w]hat did you need to steal checks for?" (Tr. 196-97.) Lore testified that despite her protests that 12
she had not copied checks, and had not stolen anything, her reputation was "[t]otally damaged. It 13
went from one extreme to the other." (Id. at 197.) 14
Lore testified that there were many SPD officers who no longer wanted to associate 15
with her as a result of what was going on in 2000 and 2001. Lore's mother testified that Lore's fellow 16
officers, who used to congregate with Lore at the mother's house at night after their shifts ended, 17
stopped coming around. (See Tr. 566.) 18
Lore testified that the events from early 2000 until August 2001 turned her, 19
emotionally, into "a totally different person," one who "couldn't deal with the stress, the anxiety," who 20
had "[t]ension headaches" and "stomach problems" and "was vomiting," and who "couldn't sleep" 21
because she "was fearful." (Tr. 191-92.) Stress had prompted Lore to consult a doctor in February 22

-- 14 of 78 --

15
or March 2000, and her doctor had prescribed an antidepressant. (See id. at 189-90.) While taking 1
the medication she suffered side effects including vomiting and diarrhea; her use of the medication 2
was gradually reduced, and she ceased taking it in late 2000 or early 2001. (See id. at 195.) 3
Lore and her mother described Lore as a gregarious person prior to the events of 4
2000-2001 (see, e.g., id. at 192, 569); they testified that as a result of those events Lore became 5
reclusive (see, e.g., Tr. 193, 568-69). Lore's mother testified that Lore "cried and cried and cried" (id. 6
at 569) and seemed "ready for a nervous breakdown," causing the mother to be "afraid [Lore wa]s 7
going to do something to hurt herself" (id. at 568). 8
Lore testified that in late 2000 or early 2001, she stopped seeking advancement within 9
SPD, declining to renew, for example, her request for a transfer to the Criminal Investigation 10
Division, where the responsibilities would be greater (see, e.g., Tr. 202-03) because she knew, based 11
on the attitudes of her superiors, that her transfer requests would be denied (see, e.g., Tr. 201-02). In 12
late June 2001, Lore's doctor notified SPD that Lore needed to be taken out of work for about a week 13
to be treated for "recurrent depression." (PX ZZ.) 14
At the close of Lore's case, her retaliation claims against Bernardi were dismissed as 15
a matter of law, over her objection, for lack of evidence as to any statements about Lore to the press 16
by Bernardi. (See Tr. 886-88.) The remaining individual defendants testified that they had not 17
engaged in the conduct described by Lore, or had had no knowledge of her complaints of 18
discrimination at the time of their acts, or had had no intent to retaliate against her. 19

-- 15 of 78 --

16
D. The Jury's Verdicts 1
The jury was instructed to return verdicts with answers to written questions with 2
respect to Lore's claims under § 1983 and the HRL against Boyle, Kerwin, and Guy, her claim under 3
the HRL against Lemm, and her claims under the HRL and Title VII against the City itself (i.e., 4
claims not asserted against any individual defendant). With respect to each of those defendants, a 5
series of interrogatories asked principally (1) whether the defendant had engaged in specified conduct; 6
(2) if so, whether the defendant was aware of Lore's discrimination complaints at the time of that 7
conduct; (3) if so, whether the defendant's conduct constituted a "material adverse employment" 8
action against Lore; (4) if so, whether Lore's complaints of discrimination were "a motivating factor" 9
in the defendant's acts "of retaliation"; (5) if so, whether Lore "sustain[ed]" any "actual damages 10
because of" the defendant's acts "of retaliation"; and (6) if so, what "amount of actual damages," if 11
any, the jury awarded Lore "as a result of being retaliated against" by that defendant. (Verdict Form, 12
May 27, 2009, at 2-16.) 13
The court, after instructing the jury with respect to burdens of proof and the elements 14
of Lore's claims, also charged the jury on federal law governing qualified immunity (see Tr. 1233-35). 15
It instructed that if the jury found that Lore had been subjected to unlawful retaliation by Boyle, 16
Kerwin, or Guy--i.e., the remaining defendants who were SPD employees at the time of their alleged 17
conduct--the jury must then consider whether that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. (See 18
Part III.A. below.) The Verdict Form submitted to the jury included that contingent qualified- 19
immunity question. (See Verdict Form at 17.) 20
After deliberating for less than three hours, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Lore 21
against the City. The jury rejected Lore's retaliation claims against Boyle because, although the jury 22

-- 16 of 78 --

17
found that he had banished Lore from the ABC office and required her to submit future information 1
requests in writing, it found that Lore had not proven that Boyle was aware of her discrimination 2
complaints when he did so. (See Verdict Form at 2.) The jury rejected Lore's retaliation claims 3
against Kerwin, finding that although he was aware of her complaints of discrimination and threatened 4
to give Lore Miranda warnings or to charge her with a crime, and although this constituted a material 5
adverse employment action, Lore had not proven that Kerwin's threats were motivated by her 6
discrimination complaints. (See Verdict Form at 8-9.) The jury rejected Lore's claim against Lemm 7
because it found that Lore had not proven that he left a harassing message on her answering machine. 8
(See Verdict Form at 11.) 9
As to Guy, the jury found that he made negative comments about Lore to news 10
reporters; that he was aware at that time that Lore had filed an EEOC complaint; that Guy's comments 11
constituted materially adverse employment action; that Lore's discrimination complaints were a 12
motivation for Guy's acts of retaliation; and that as a result of his retaliatory acts, Lore suffered actual 13
damages in the amounts of $100,000 for harm to her reputation and $150,000 for pain, suffering, and 14
emotional distress. (See Verdict Form at 5-7.) However, the jury answered "Yes" to the question of 15
whether Guy was entitled to qualified immunity. (See id. at 17.) 16
As to the City, the jury answered "Yes" to the question of whether the City, "through 17
the conduct of its employees or representatives, engage[d] in the following actions: a) offering to 18
forgo criminal and administrative charges against . . . Lore in exchange for her withdrawal of her 19
complaints of discrimination; or b) suspending . . . Lore for ten days and seeking a criminal 20
investigation of her conduct." (Verdict Form at 14.) The jury found that the City, "through its 21
employees and representatives," was "aware of . . . Lore's complaints of discrimination with the 22

-- 17 of 78 --

18
EEOC at the time either of the above-mentioned acts occurred"; that the City's "above-mentioned acts 1
(a. or b.), through the conduct of its employees and representatives, constitute[d] material adverse 2
employment actions"; that "Lore's complaints of discrimination [were] a motivating factor" for the 3
City's "above-mentioned acts (a. or b.) of retaliation"; and that "because of" the City's "acts of 4
retaliation," Lore suffered actual damages in the amounts of $100,000 for harm to her reputation and 5
$150,000 for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. (Verdict Form at 14-16.) 6
The court ruled that, based on the jury's various findings, "there is a verdict of two 7
hundred and fifty thousand dollars against the City of Syracuse and a verdict of no cause for action 8
against Defendants Boyle, Kerwin, Guy, and Lemm. The verdict of no cause against Mr. Guy is 9
based on the verdict of him being entitled to qualified immunity." (Tr. 1256.) Lore and the City 10
thereafter made posttrial motions asking the court to set aside the parts of the jury's verdict that were, 11
respectively, adverse to them. In an order dated August 7, 2009, reported at 2009 WL 2473508 12
("Lore III"), the district court denied the motions, ruling principally that they were either untimely or 13
meritless, see id. at *1-*2. For example, the court noted that the jury found that the City knew in July 14
that Lore had made copies of other officers' pay stubs, and that the jury likely found the City's belated 15
suspension of Lore suspicious: 16
The jury could well have concluded that if plaintiff had actually engaged in the 17
serious criminal conduct as alleged by the Police Department, charges would 18
have immediately been filed against her and the matter would have 19
immediately been referred to the District Attorney's office. By waiting over 20
two months [after the September hearing] to file charges and refer the matter 21
to the District Attorney's office,--and only after plaintiff refused to withdraw 22
her EEOC complaint--the jury was justified in concluding that the City 23
employees and representatives were motivated by retaliation against her in 24
violation of the Human Rights Law and Title VII. 25
Lore III, 2009 WL 2473508, at *1. 26

-- 18 of 78 --

19
In an order dated September 11, 2009, reported at 2009 WL 2957784 ("Lore IV"), the 1
court granted in part Lore's request pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for attorneys' fees and costs, 2
awarding a total of $167,955.34, see id. at *1-*2 (see Part III.C.5. below). 3
On the basis of the jury's verdict, the orders of dismissal prior to trial, and the dismissal 4
of the claims against Bernardi during trial, the court entered a final judgment dismissing Lore's claims 5
against all defendants other than the City. On the basis of the jury verdict awarding Lore $250,000 6
in compensatory damages against the City and the court's award of fees and costs, the court entered 7
judgment ordering the City to pay Lore a total of $417,955.34. Execution of the judgment was stayed 8
pending appeal, with the City being required to post a $600,000 supersedeas bond. 9
E. Issues on Appeal 10
The City has appealed, challenging the judgment against it on legal, procedural, and 11
evidentiary grounds (see Parts II and IV below). Lore filed a cross-appeal stating that she wished to 12
challenge all parts of the judgment and the prejudgment and postjudgment orders that were adverse 13
to her. However, not all such decisions are discussed in Lore's briefs on appeal. For example, other 14
than apparently referring to all individual defendants in contending that the district court erred in 15
granting summary judgment dismissing her HRL discrimination claims on the ground that she had 16
suffered no materially adverse employment action, Lore's briefs contain no mention of Tassone and 17
Rathbun at all. Lore's briefs also contain no discussion of the dismissals of her Title VII claims 18
against any individual defendant; of her due process claims against any defendant; of her common-law 19
claims against any defendant for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress; or of her 20
Title VII claims against the City for hostile work environment, or retaliation in the form of 21

-- 19 of 78 --

20
unfavorable performance reviews after she filed complaints of discrimination, or loss of overtime pay, 1
or any conduct predating September 19, 1999. We regard as waived any challenges by Lore to 2
adverse decisions that are undiscussed. See generally Jackler v. Byrne, 658 F.3d 225, 233 (2d Cir. 3
2011); Day v. Morgenthau, 909 F.2d 75, 76 (2d Cir. 1990). And although Lore criticizes the district 4
court's rulings that she failed to show a "custom, policy or practice of the City of Syracuse"--such as 5
would be necessary to maintain a § 1983 claim against the City--and "failed to allege a cause of action 6
under the Equal Protection Clause" (Lore's reply brief on appeal at 3-4), such criticisms appear only 7
in Lore's reply brief. As Lore herself points out--with respect to an argument first made by the City 8
in its reply brief--"issues not raised in [a party's] opening brief are considered abandoned" (Lore's 9
brief on appeal at 54 n.7). In Parts III and IV below, we discuss only Lore's principal contentions that 10
are properly presented. 11
In assessing each side's contentions on appeal, we bear in mind, inter alia, (1) that Lore 12
had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence each of the elements of her claims 13
against each defendant; (2) that a defendant has the burden of proof with respect to affirmative 14
defenses, and qualified immunity is such a defense, see, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 15
(1980); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982); Jules Rabin Associates, Inc. v. Landon, 38 16
N.Y.2d 827, 828, 382 N.Y.S.2d 45, 45 (1976); (3) that the weight of the evidence, while a basis for 17
argument to the jury, is not a ground for reversal on appeal, see, e.g., Robinson v. Cattaraugus County, 18
147 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir. 1998); Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d 332, 345 (2d Cir. 1993); Schwartz v. 19
Capital Liquidators, Inc., 984 F.2d 53, 54 (2d Cir. 1993); and (4) that a jury is entitled to believe part 20
and disbelieve part of the testimony of any given witness, see, e.g., Robinson v. Cattaraugus County, 21
147 F.3d at 160; Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer, 783 F.2d 319, 325 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 22

-- 20 of 78 --

21
922 (1987), and its assessments of witness credibility and its choices between competing factual 1
inferences are not to be second-guessed, see generally Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 2
(1985) ("Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them 3
cannot be clearly erroneous."). With respect to factual findings by the jury that were favorable to 4
Lore, we view the trial record in the light most favorable to her. 5
II. THE CITY'S CHALLENGES WITH REGARD TO LIABILITY 6
The City urges that we reverse or vacate the judgment entered against it on various 7
grounds. It contends, inter alia, that the district court should have granted judgment as a matter of law 8
(or "JMOL") dismissing Lore's breach-of-contract claim and dismissing so much of her retaliation 9
claims as sought damages for reputational injury on the ground that reputation damages are 10
unavailable as a matter of law; and it contends that it was entitled to JMOL dismissing Lore's claims 11
for emotional injury or injury to her reputation on the ground that there was insufficient trial evidence 12
to support findings that any such injuries were caused by culpable acts that the jury found had been 13
committed by the City or its employees. Alternatively, the City contends that it is entitled to a new 14
trial because of errors in the admission of evidence, in instructions to the jury, and in the form of 15
certain questions in the jury interrogatories. The City also contends, as discussed in Part IV below, 16
that, even if there were no trial errors, the jury's award of $150,000 in damages for emotional distress 17
was excessive and that this Court therefore should either order a new trial limited to such damages 18
or order a new trial unless Lore agrees to accept a reduction of that award from $150,000 to $15,000. 19
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that although the trial was not without flaws, the City's 20
arguments present no basis for disturbing the judgment against it. 21

-- 21 of 78 --

22
A. The City's Legal Arguments 1
The City contends that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Lore's 2
claims (1) for breach of its contract with the Police Union, (2) for injury to her reputation, and (3) for 3
pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Some of these contentions are not preserved for appellate 4
review; and none of them provides a basis for reversal. 5
We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. See, e.g., 6
Sanders v. New York City Human Resources Administration, 361 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir. 2004). And 7
whether conducting review de novo or under a less sweeping standard, we "must disregard all errors 8
and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. A substantial right 9
is not implicated if there is no likelihood that the error or defect affected the outcome of the case. See, 10
e.g., Tesser v. Board of Education, 370 F.3d 314, 319 (2d Cir. 2004). 11
1. The Breach of Contract Claim 12
After both sides had rested at trial and before any claims were submitted to the jury, 13
the City moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law dismissing, inter alia, 14
Lore's claim that the City's retaliation against her for filing complaints of discrimination breached its 15
collective bargaining agreement with the Police Union. The City argued principally that since Lore 16
was not a party to the CBA, she was not entitled to sue the City for its alleged breach. (See Tr. 17
1079-80.) The district court denied the Rule 50(a) motion, allowing the breach-of-contract claim to 18
be submitted to the jury. Following the jury's verdict, the City moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19
50(b) for the entry of JMOL in its favor on a number of issues, but it did not mention the breach-of- 20

-- 22 of 78 --

23
contract issue until it filed a reply brief in support of that motion. In Lore III, the court rejected the 1
City's contention that it was entitled to relief because of the submission of the contract claim to the 2
jury, stating as follows: 3
It appears as if the defendant City of Syracuse may not have raised an 4
appropriate or timely objection to submissions of the breach of contract claim 5
to the jury. In any event, in view of the evidence of Human Rights Law and 6
§ 1983 violations by the City, the submission of the breach of contract claim 7
to the jury, even if incorrect, was harmless error. However, it is unclear from 8
the verdict form whether or not the jury actually made a specific finding of 9
breach of contract against the City. Therefore, prejudgment interest will not 10
be awarded. 11
Lore III, 2009 WL 2473508, at *2. 12
The City's objection to the submission of Lore's breach-of-contract claim to the jury 13
has merit. Under New York law, 14
when an employer and a union enter into a collective bargaining agreement 15
that creates a grievance procedure, an employee subject to the agreement may 16
not sue the employer directly for breach of that agreement but must proceed, 17
through the union, in accordance with the contract. Unless the contract 18
provides otherwise, only when the union fails in its duty of fair representation 19
can the employee go beyond the agreed procedure and litigate a contract issue 20
directly against the employer . . . . 21
Board of Education v. Ambach, 70 N.Y.2d 501, 508, 522 N.Y.S.2d 831, 834 (1987), cert. denied, 485 22
U.S. 1034 (1988). So long as "the discrete fair representation question still needs to be litigated," 23
there can be no resolution on the employee's breach-of-contract claim against the employer. Matter 24
of Obot, 89 N.Y.2d 883, 886 n.*, 653 N.Y.S.2d 245, 246 n.* (1996). No claim against the union was 25
asserted by Lore in this case. Thus, we agree with the City that Lore's breach-of-contract claim 26
against the City should have been dismissed as a matter of law. 27
We agree with the district court's conclusion, however, that even if the City's challenge 28
to the submission of the breach-of-contract claim to the jury was preserved, despite its not being made 29

-- 23 of 78 --

24
in the City's main memorandum of law in support of its Rule 50(b) motion, the submission of that 1
claim to the jury was an error that was entirely harmless. The pertinent section of the Verdict Form 2
bore the heading "E. Claims of Retaliation Against Defendant City of Syracuse (Human Rights 3
Law, Title VII, and Breach of Contract)." (Verdict Form at 14.) Despite the mention of breach of 4
contract in this heading, all of the questions that followed (see Part I.D. above) were directed only 5
toward the elements of Lore's claims under Title VII and the HRL, e.g., whether the City, through its 6
employees or representatives, engaged in specific conduct, whether that conduct constituted materially 7
adverse employment action against Lore, whether the City knew of Lore's complaints of 8
discrimination at the time of the adverse action, and whether the retaliatory conduct was motivated 9
by those complaints. No interrogatory posed any question about a contract issue. The jury's answers 10
to the questions that were posed in that section sufficed to support findings that the City violated Title 11
VII and the HRL; and the district court made no award of prejudgment interest, which would have 12
been mandatory if the judgment against the City had been for breach of contract, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. 13
§ 5001(a) (2000) ("Interest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded because of a breach of 14
performance of a contract . . . ." (emphasis added)). 15
We conclude that neither the inclusion of "Breach of Contract" in the Verdict Form's 16
section heading nor any instructions to the jury on the subject of breach of contract affected the City's 17
rights. 18
2. The Reputational Injury Claims 19
The City contends that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Lore's 20
claims for injury to her reputation. In its brief on appeal, the City initially argued that damages for 21

-- 24 of 78 --

25
injury to reputation (1) are not available as a matter of law (City's brief on appeal at 38), or (2) are not 1
available without proof of some injury in addition to the injury to reputation (see id. at 36-38) (the 2
"stigma plus" contention), or (3) were not proven (a) because "[t]here is no evidence in this record 3
of any harm to plaintiff's reputation" (id. at 29), and (b) because Lore failed to show that acts of the 4
City for which it was held liable proximately caused any harm to her reputation (see id. at 38). After 5
oral argument of the present appeals, the City submitted a letter brief in response to questions from 6
this Court and seemed to retreat from its first contention, i.e., that reputational damages simply are 7
unrecoverable in an action under Title VII or the HRL, and rested its JMOL request on the 8
insufficiency of Lore's evidence. The City's letter suggests that its challenge to the award of 9
reputational damages may be merely that "Lore is not entitled to reputation damages under the facts 10
of this case because no causally-related damages were proved." (Letter from Gabrielle Mardany Hope 11
dated November 29, 2010 ("City's Postargument Letter"), at 3 (emphasis in original).) None of the 12
City's arguments provides ground for reversal. 13
In order for a party to pursue a request for JMOL on appeal, the party must have made 14
timely motions for JMOL in the district court. Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15
provides in part that "[a] motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the 16
case is submitted to the jury." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2). The principal purpose of the requirement that 17
any such motion be made before the case is submitted to the jury is "to assure the responding party 18
an opportunity to cure any deficiency in that party's proof." E.g., Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d at 340; see, 19
e.g., Baskin v. Hawley, 807 F.2d 1120, 1134 (2d Cir. 1986). To ensure that that opportunity is a "fair" 20
one, Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d at 340, Rule 50(a) also provides that "[t]he motion must specify the 21
judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment," Fed. R. Civ. P. 22

-- 25 of 78 --

26
50(a)(2) (emphases added). "[T]he specificity requirement is obligatory." Holmes v. United States, 1
85 F.3d 956, 962 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Rule 50(a) motion requesting 2
judgment as a matter of law on one ground but omitting another is insufficient to preserve a JMOL 3
argument based on the latter. See, e.g., id. at 961-63; Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 164 4
(2d Cir. 1998). 5
If the Rule 50(a) motion is not granted, the movant may, no later than 28 days after the 6
entry of a judgment, "file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) 7
(emphasis added). However, 8
[b]ecause the Rule 50(b) motion is only a renewal of the preverdict motion, it 9
can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict motion. The earlier 10
motion informs the opposing party of the challenge to the sufficiency of the 11
evidence and affords a clear opportunity to provide additional evidence that 12
may be available. The earlier motion also alerts the court to the opportunity 13
to simplify the trial by resolving some issues, or even all issues, without 14
submission to the jury. 15
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Advisory Committee Note (2006) (emphasis added); see, e.g., id. Advisory 16
Committee Note (1991) ("[a] post-trial motion for judgment can be granted only on grounds advanced 17
in the pre-verdict motion"); Holmes v. United States, 85 F.3d at 962. As to any issue on which proper 18
Rule 50 motions were not made, JMOL may not properly be granted by the district court, or upheld 19
on appeal, or ordered by the appellate court unless that action is required in order to prevent manifest 20
injustice. See, e.g., Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d at 164; Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National 21
Realty & Development Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 287 (2d Cir. 1998). 22
Although the City made two Rule 50(a) motions (one after Lore rested, and the second 23
after the defendants rested), neither of them asserted either that reputational damages are unavailable 24
to a Title VII or HRL plaintiff or that Lore could not be awarded such damages because of an 25

-- 26 of 78 --

27
insufficiency in her evidence. The City's 50(a) motions requested JMOL on the ground of lack of 1
evidence on other specified issues (see Tr. 1079-86) or on the inappropriate ground that several 2
individual defendants' testimony disputed Lore's testimony as to various events (see, e.g., id. at 889, 3
1080-81; see also id. at 1084 (citing testimony by a nondefendant witness that certain statements had 4
not been made)). But there was no argument in either of the City's Rule 50(a) motions that 5
reputational damages were unavailable as a matter of law, or that Lore had failed to prove "stigma 6
plus," or that Lore had failed to present evidence of causation. Indeed, there was no mention of 7
reputation at all. 8
The City's postverdict motion pursuant to Rule 50(b) did include a section asserting 9
that Lore was "NOT ENTITLED TO REPUTATIONAL DAMAGES AS A MATTER OF LAW" and 10
proffered the City's doctrinal and sufficiency bases for that assertion. (See City's Post-Trial 11
Memorandum of Law at 14-17.) It asserted, inter alia, that "to recover for loss of reputation, plaintiff 12
would have had to offer more evidence than just her own testimony." (Id. at 17.) But this argument 13
was not a renewal of any argument made in the City's Rule 50(a) motion, and its assertion postverdict 14
plainly did not give Lore the requisite opportunity to cure any perceived deficiency in her proof before 15
the case was submitted to the jury. The district court, in ruling on the City's Rule 50(b) motion, did 16
not address the challenge to reputational damages except implicitly in its observation that some of the 17
City's arguments "ha[d] been waived by failing to timely object, or to raise the issue," Lore III, 2009 18
WL 2473508, at *2. We conclude that the City's request for judgment as a matter of law dismissing 19
Lore's claims for injury to her reputation was not properly preserved because it was not raised in the 20
City's Rule 50(a) motion. 21

-- 27 of 78 --

28
Nor can we conclude that justice requires that we overlook the City's procedural 1
default, on the basis of either the law or the state of the record. As to the law, EEOC guidelines with 2
respect to private actions under Title VII state that 3
[d]amages are available for the intangible injuries of emotional harm 4
such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of 5
enjoyment of life. Other nonpecuniary losses could include injury to 6
professional standing, [and] injury to character and reputation . . . . 7
EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available under § 102 of the 8
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992), http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/damages.html (last visited 9
Feb. 1, 2012) (emphases added). Although a showing of "stigma plus" is required with respect to 10
defamation-type claims under the Due Process Clause, see, e.g., Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 11
322, 329-30 (2d Cir. 2004); Neu v. Corcoran, 869 F.2d 662, 667 (2d Cir.) ("Paul[ v. Davis, 424 U.S. 12
693 (1976)] has been widely interpreted as holding that 'stigma plus' is required to establish a 13
constitutional deprivation" (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 816 (1989), the EEOC guidelines 14
contain no suggestion that "stigma plus" is a prerequisite to recovery for reputational injury on a claim 15
under Title VII. 16
As to the record, the district court found that "[t]he jury verdict was justified by the law 17
and the evidence," Lore III, 2009 WL 2473508, at *1, and the City's contention that "[t]here is no 18
evidence in this record of any harm to plaintiff's reputation" (City's brief on appeal at 29) is frivolous. 19
The record includes testimony by Lore that, as a result of the retaliation that followed her complaints 20
of discrimination, she was shunned by many fellow SPD members and was approached by civilians 21
in public who interpreted the news reports of Guy's statements as indicating that Lore had stolen other 22
officers' paychecks. The City's argument that Lore did not, for example, give the names of the persons 23
who shunned or criticized her goes not to the admissibility of the evidence but rather to its weight, 24

-- 28 of 78 --

29
which is not a ground for appeal. We see no proper basis for disturbing the jury's assessment of that 1
evidence or its conclusion that defendants' retaliatory actions caused Lore reputational injury. 2
3. The Emotional Distress Claims 3
The City contends that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Lore's 4
claims for emotional distress on the ground that she failed to present evidence that any such distress 5
was caused by the conduct in which the City was found to have engaged. This contention suffers the 6
same flaws as the City's contention that it was entitled to JMOL on the claims for reputational injury. 7
Neither of the City's Rule 50(a) motions mentioned any perceived insufficiency in Lore's evidence 8
that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the retaliatory treatment by the defendants. 9
The City also argues that the jury's award to Lore of $150,000 for her emotional 10
distress was excessive. That contention is discussed in Part IV below. 11
B. The City's Claims of Trial Error 12
The City argues alternatively that it is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the 13
district court erroneously admitted testimony as to the dismissed discrimination claims and testimony 14
by Lore's expert witness; that it failed to instruct the jury that the discrimination claims had been 15
dismissed and failed to instruct the jury properly on the issue of causation; and that the Verdict Form 16
given to the jury inappropriately contained compound questions. We see no basis for a new trial in 17
the court's instructions. And although we question the court's admission of the expert's testimony, and 18
we find error in the Verdict Form's use of compound questions, the former was harmless, and the City 19
did not preserve its right to appeal the latter. 20

-- 29 of 78 --

30
1. Lore's Expert Witness 1
The City complains that, over defense objections, the court allowed Lore to present 2
expert testimony by William Kenneth Katsaris, a former police officer and county sheriff with a 3
master's degree in science, who had fulfilled all the non-dissertation requirements for a doctorate in 4
public administration, and who was a state police academy instructor on, inter alia, "issues relating 5
to civil rights, discrimination, harassment retaliation for issues of complaints that may be lodged 6
within the law enforcement agency" (Tr. 781; see id. at 776-84). Katsaris, testifying as "an expert in 7
law enforcement" (Tr. 784), was allowed to opine that SPD's treatment of Lore reflected retaliation 8
for her having filed complaints of discrimination. (See, e.g., id. at 786-87 ("I believe very strongly 9
there was [sic] elements of retaliation, between four and five occasions at least, for what appeared to 10
be her filing of grievances and her EEOC complaint.").) Katsaris gave his opinion, with a "reasonable 11
degree of certainty," that "Lore was subjected to retaliation for making a complaint of discrimination" 12
(id. at 798-99; see id. at 788) when defendants, inter alia, prevented her from entering the ABC Office 13
or from filing an injury report, or threatened her with criminal charges (see, e.g., id. at 788-90, 14
812-13). 15
We apply abuse-of-discretion review to a trial court's evidentiary rulings, see, e.g., Old 16
Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 174 n.1 (1997); United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54-55 17
(1984), including those as to the admissibility of expert testimony, see, e.g., General Electric Co. v. 18
Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 138-39, 141-43 (1997). The hallmark of abuse-of-discretion review is 19
deference, see, e.g., id. at 143; and a ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony "is to be sustained 20
unless manifestly erroneous," Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 (1962). Further, an 21
erroneous evidentiary ruling warrants a new trial only when "a substantial right of a party is affected," 22

-- 30 of 78 --

31
as when "a jury's judgment would be swayed in a material fashion by the error." Arlio v. Lively, 474 1
F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2007); see Hester v. BIC Corp., 225 F.3d 178, 181 (2d Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Evid. 2
103(a). 3
The City argues that the admission of Katsaris's opinions was error on the ground that 4
"testimony that embraces the ultimate conclusion to be reached in a case is impermissible." (City's 5
brief on appeal at 51; see also id. at 49-50.) We reject that contention, given the provision in Rule 6
704(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence that, with an exception not applicable here, opinion testimony 7
that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable merely because it "embraces an ultimate issue" to be 8
decided by the factfinder. Fed. R. Evid. 704(a). Rather, our difficulty with the admission of Katsaris's 9
testimony is that his opinions did not seem likely to help "the trier of fact to understand the evidence 10
or to determine a fact in issue," Fed. R. Evid. 702. While the matter of whether a given defendant 11
impermissibly retaliated against Lore had several components--(a) did the defendant perform the acts 12
alleged by Lore, (b) at the time of those acts did the defendant know of Lore's complaints of 13
discrimination, (c) were those acts motivated by Lore's complaints of discrimination, and (d) did those 14
acts constitute materially adverse actions--those components are relatively straightforward. 15
However, we need not decide whether the admission of Katsaris's testimony constituted 16
an abuse of discretion, for even if it did, the admission of his opinions was harmless, as the jury--quite 17
clearly--was not unduly influenced by them. Contrary to Katsaris's stated opinions, the jury found 18
that Lore had not proven her retaliation claims against three of the four individual defendants under 19
consideration. Further, the jury's answers to the interrogatories reflected a painstakingly focused 20
approach that resulted in no two sets of answers being the same. Thus, while finding that Lore had 21
proven all the elements of her retaliation claims against Guy, it found that Lore had failed (a) to prove 22

-- 31 of 78 --

32
that Lemm engaged in the conduct of which he was accused, (b) to prove that Boyle, when engaging 1
in conduct adverse to Lore, had known of Lore's complaints of discrimination, and (c) to prove that 2
Kerwin, when engaging in conduct adverse to Lore while knowing of her complaints of 3
discrimination, was motivated by her complaints. Given the jury's findings on Lore's claims of 4
retaliation, we cannot conclude that Katsaris's testimony swayed the jury in any material fashion. 5
2. Instructions to the Jury 6
With respect to the charge to the jury, the City does not point to any allegedly 7
erroneous statement but complains that the court did not instruct the jury (a) that Lore's discrimination 8
claims had been dismissed (see City's brief on appeal at 54), and (b) that Lore "was obligated to prove 9
intent on her retaliation claims or that [Lore] had to prove her damages were proximately caused by 10
the incidents for which a particular defendant was found liable" (id. at 53 (emphases in original)). "A 11
jury instruction is erroneous if it misleads the jury as to the correct legal standard or does not 12
adequately inform the jury on the law." Perry v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 115 F.3d 143, 153 (2d Cir. 1997) 13
("Perry") (internal quotation marks omitted). "[A] jury instruction will be deemed adequate if the 14
charge . . . is correct and sufficiently covers the case so that a jury can intelligently determine the 15
questions presented to it." Schermerhorn v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, 91 F.3d 16
316, 322 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). 17
"We review a claim of error in the district court's jury instructions de novo, and will 18
reverse on this basis only if the appellant can show that the error was prejudicial in light of the charge 19
as a whole." Perry, 115 F.3d at 153. "An omission, or an incomplete instruction, is less likely to be 20
prejudicial than a misstatement of the law." Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 155 (1977). If the 21

-- 32 of 78 --

33
instructions, read as a whole, presented the issues to the jury in a fair and evenhanded manner, they 1
do not warrant reversal. See, e.g., New York v. Pullman Inc., 662 F.2d 910, 917 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. 2
denied, 454 U.S. 1164 (1982). 3
a. The Prior Dismissal of Lore's Discrimination Claims 4
Within the above framework, we reject the City's contention that the court was required 5
to inform the jury that Lore's discrimination claims had been dismissed. That dismissal--even if it had 6
been entirely correct, which it was not (see Part III.B. below)--would not be material to Lore's claims 7
of retaliation. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show that (1) she was 8
engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of that activity; (3) the employee suffered 9
a materially adverse action; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and 10
that adverse action. See generally Kessler v. Westchester Department of Social Services, 461 F.3d 11
199, 205-06, 207-10 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Kessler"); Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & 12
Development Corp., 136 F.3d at 292. However, in order to recover for retaliation for having filed 13
such a complaint, the plaintiff need not prove that her underlying complaint of discrimination had 14
merit. See, e.g., Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., 95 F.3d 1170, 1177-78 (2d Cir. 1996); Manoharan 15
v. Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir. 1988). 16
Of necessity, given the nature of the claims of retaliation, the fact that Lore had filed 17
complaints of discrimination would be mentioned at trial in order to place her retaliation claims in 18
context. And each side stretched to present that context in an advantageous light. (See, e.g., Part V 19
below.) But throughout the trial, the court told the jurors that they were not to concern themselves 20
with whether Lore's discrimination complaints had merit. The court began by so informing the 21

-- 33 of 78 --

34
prospective jurors during voir dire, stating that Lore had filed two "claims of discrimination against 1
the city police department," that "we are not getting into the merits of those claims because that's not 2
at issue here," and that federal and state law forbid a public employer to retaliate against an employee 3
for filing a claim of discrimination, "regardless of the merits of what you have filed." (Tr. 14.) 4
After jury selection, the court informed the jurors that there was no dispute that Lore 5
had filed a claim with the EEOC alleging discriminatory conduct; and it stated that "the issue before 6
you will not be whether or not she was discriminated against at all. The issue before you is after she 7
filed those claims, was she retaliated against because she filed the claims. The merits of those claims 8
that she filed are not before you." (Tr. 38 (emphases added).) And again, before the parties' opening 9
statements, the court reiterated that Lore had filed complaints of discrimination but stated: 10
I have instructed counsel, and I am instructing you that there will be no 11
discussion about the results of her filing of the complaints. As I said, that's 12
irrelevant to the issues in this case. You are here only for retaliation. The 13
results are immaterial whether they are valid or invalid. 14
We are not going to have any evidence about that. You are not to 15
speculate. You are not to consider what was the results of her complaints. 16
(Id. at 47.) 17
The court thereafter also repeatedly admonished counsel in the presence of the jury, 18
and reminded the jury, that the trial was not concerned with the merits of Lore's complaints of 19
discrimination. For example, when defense counsel in his opening statement told the jury that Lore 20
had not suffered sexual harassment, loss of rank, or loss of pay, the court promptly reminded him "not 21
to get into that" (Tr. 80) and stated: 22
THE COURT: Again, Mr. Smith, we are not talking about the merits 23
of this claim. 24
. . . [M]embers of the jury, the merits of her [discrimination] claim[s 25
are] irrelevant. We are talking about retaliation. 26

-- 34 of 78 --

35
(Id.) When Lore was questioned by her own attorney about her complaints of discrimination (see id. 1
at 98), the court ruled that Lore was not to go into the details of her complaints; it allowed her to 2
answer "to the extent that if she wants to say it was gender discrimination, yes or no. That's all." (Id. 3
at 99; see also id. at 102 ("[Y]ou are getting close to the merits of those filings, and I am not going 4
to allow it. We are not here to decide the merits of any of the grievances filed."); id. at 113 ("[W]e 5
know she filed [a complaint] for gender discrimination. I told you we are not getting into the details 6
because this is a retaliation cause of action that we are talking about.").) And in its final charge to the 7
jury the court again instructed, "[t]he merits of plaintiff's complaints of gender discrimination are of 8
no concern to you. Instead, your task is to determine whether plaintiff was unlawfully retaliated 9
against for complaining of gender discrimination." (Tr. 1226 (emphasis added).) Given that the trial 10
was focused on Lore's claims of retaliation, the court properly instructed that the merits of her claims 11
of discrimination were of no proper concern to the jury. 12
To the extent that the City argues that such an instruction might have been needed to 13
avoid jury confusion as to precisely what was at issue, we note that defendants must bear some 14
responsibility for such confusion as may have occurred. Loose and inapposite language, conflating 15
the areas of discrimination and retaliation, was repeatedly used by defense counsel, who, instead of 16
referring to retaliation for complaints of discrimination, referred to "retaliation based upon gender" 17
(e.g., id. at 78, 88) and "sexual retaliation" (e.g., Tr. 76, 77, 829, 830). And, disregarding the court's 18
repeated admonitions not to get into the merits of Lore's discrimination complaints, defense counsel 19
in his summation stated as follows: 20
I think when we review this evidence together, you will conclude at the end of 21
this case that there were no acts of discrimination and certainly no acts of 22
retaliation against Sergeant Lore. 23

-- 35 of 78 --

36
So where does it begin? Where does it begin? We frankly know it 1
goes back to May of 1999 when Sergeant Lore then held the position of public 2
information officer, and for reasons that you heard but reasons, frankly, that 3
are not before you in this trial, she was transferred. 4
And frankly, as a result of that transfer out of that position, that 5
everything starts and ends with Therese Lore that she has been discriminated 6
against, that she has been retaliated against. Set aside for the moment that the 7
mayor of the City of Syracuse or the chief's office has absolutely every right 8
to transfer whatever employee they want. 9
For instance, if there are complaints about the public information 10
officer, the public information officer gets in tantrums, temper tantrums, 11
shouting fights, cussing fights with members of the media, I suggest to you 12
that might be one good reason to transfer her out of her position as the public 13
information officer. 14
(Tr. 1136-37 (emphases added).) 15
The court's instructions eliminating the merits of Lore's complaints of discrimination 16
from consideration by the jury were clear and appropriate. And if the court had, as the City wishes, 17
told the jury that Lore's discrimination claims had been dismissed, such an instruction--in light of the 18
fact that the dismissal of some of those claims was erroneous (see Part III.B. below)--might well have 19
entitled Lore to a new trial. 20
b. The Element of Causation 21
Nor do we see any unfairness in the court's instructions to the jury as to the element 22
of causation. The court informed the jury that "plaintiff must prove there was a causal connection 23
between her complaint of discrimination with the EEOC and a materially adverse employment 24
action." (Tr. 1228.) The court instructed, in part, that 25
plaintiff must prove that her complaints of discrimination w[ere] a cause of the 26
alleged acts of retaliation. You must determine whether the defendant under 27
consideration acted with a retaliatory motive, or alternatively, whether they 28

-- 36 of 78 --

37
acted for non-retaliatory, permissible reasons. You have heard at trial various 1
explanations from the defendants for their actions. Your task now is to 2
determine whether plaintiff has proven that the defendants more likely acted 3
in retaliation than in accordance with their proffered reasons. . . . If you 4
determine that plaintiff's complaints of discrimination and other events both 5
served as motivating factors for the alleged acts of retaliation, you must find 6
for the plaintiff against the defendant under consideration. On the other hand, 7
if you find that plaintiff has not proven that her complaints of discrimination 8
served as a motivating factor for the alleged acts of retaliation, you must find 9
for the defendant under consideration. 10
(Tr. 1230-31.) The court thereafter elaborated on the issue of 11
proximate cause of plaintiff's damages. Should you find that the plaintiff has 12
proven [that defendant violated Lore's First Amendment right to complain of 13
gender discrimination], you must next determine whether plaintiff's injuries 14
were caused by the defendants' alleged retaliatory actions. Plaintiff has the 15
burden to prove that her injuries would not have occurred without defendants' 16
retaliatory conduct. Therefore, if plaintiff's injuries would have occurred 17
absent the alleged acts of retaliation, you must find for the defendant under 18
consideration. 19
(Tr. 1232.) The court instructed that damages were appropriate only as necessary to compensate Lore 20
for harm "she sustained as a direct result of the defendants' actions" (id. at 1236 (emphasis added)) 21
and "as the direct result of any retaliation she may have suffered" (id. at 1237 (emphases added)). The 22
Verdict Form itself asked whether Lore "sustain[ed] actual damages because of defendant City of 23
Syracuse's acts of retaliation." (Verdict Form at 15 (emphases added).) 24
Considering the court's instructions as a whole, we see in them no basis for a new trial. 25
3. The Verdict Form 26
The City also contends that it is entitled to a new trial because the section of the 27
Verdict Form with regard to the City posed compound questions. Thus, the first interrogatory called 28
for a single "Yes" or "No" answer to the question whether the City "a) offer[ed] to forgo criminal and 29

-- 37 of 78 --

38
administrative charges against plaintiff Therese Lore in exchange for her withdrawal of her 1
complaints of discrimination; or b) suspend[ed] plaintiff Therese Lore for ten days and s[ought] a 2
criminal investigation of her conduct." (Verdict Form at 14 (emphasis added).) Subsequent questions 3
asked about knowledge, motivation, and the employment effect (materially adverse or not) of "either" 4
of those acts, "(a. or b.)." (Id. at 14, 15.) 5
Decisions as to the format and language to be used in a special verdict form are 6
committed to the trial court's discretion, see, e.g., Smith v. Lightning Bolt Productions, Inc., 861 F.2d 7
363, 370 (2d Cir. 1988), and there is no abuse of discretion if the verdict form, when read in 8
conjunction with the instructions to the jury, clearly presents the material factual issues raised by the 9
pleadings and evidence, see, e.g., Cutlass Productions, Inc. v. Bregman, 682 F.2d 323, 327 (2d Cir. 10
1982). A party that fails to object at trial to the substance or ambiguity of special verdict questions 11
to be put to the jury waives its right to a new trial on that ground and has no right to object to such 12
matters on appeal, see, e.g., United States Football League v. National Football League, 842 F.2d 13
1335, 1367 (2d Cir. 1988); Bohack Corp. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 715 F.2d 703, 710 n.8 (2d 14
Cir. 1983), unless the error is fundamental, see generally Shade v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 15
251 F.3d 307, 312-13 (2d Cir. 2001). "An error is fundamental under this standard only if it is 'so 16
serious and flagrant that it goes to the very integrity of the trial.'" Id. at 313 (quoting Modave v. Long 17
Island Jewish Medical Center, 501 F.2d 1065, 1072 (2d Cir. 1974)). 18
Although the posing of compound questions is inappropriate because it normally will 19
cause the jury's answers to be ambiguous, the City concedes that it did not object to the Verdict Form 20
on this ground. (See City's Postargument Letter at 2.) The City states that it objected "to the entire 21
verdict form" (id.); but in order to preserve an issue for appeal, an objection "must be sufficiently 22

-- 38 of 78 --

39
specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error," Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 1
119 (1943). An objection "to the entire verdict form" does not suffice to alert the court to a specific 2
error in a particular question. 3
Although the City also states that it had proposed its own set of interrogatories "which 4
did not contain a compound question" (City's Postargument Letter at 2), its proposed questions could 5
not have alerted the court to a need to require separate answers to disjunctive possibilities, for the 6
City's proposed questions did not set out any possibilities separately; the City did not request separate 7
findings as to whether it (a) offered to forgo criminal charges if Lore would withdraw her 8
discrimination complaints, or (b) suspended her for refusing to do so and attempted to have her 9
prosecuted. The City's proposed liability interrogatories--aside from inappropriate legal questions 10
with regard to qualified immunity (see generally Part III.A.1. below)--asked simply whether a given 11
defendant "intentionally retaliated against [Lore] for filing complaints of" gender "discrimination" and 12
if so whether Lore was thereby injured. Thus, despite the fact that some of the individual defendants 13
had testified that they did not engage in the conduct described by Lore--and on the basis of their own 14
evidence moved, inappropriately, for judgment as a matter of law (see, e.g., Tr. 889, 1080-81, 1084)-- 15
not one of the City's proposed questions asked the jury to make a finding as to whether Lore had 16
proven that a given defendant had in fact performed a particular alleged retaliatory act. 17
It was well within the court's discretion not to adopt the City's proposed blunderbuss 18
interrogatories; and the City's present objection to the compound questions in the interrogatories that 19
were adopted is not preserved for review. Given that there was ample evidence upon which the jury 20
could find that the City both (a) offered to forgo criminal and administrative charges against Lore if 21
she would withdraw her complaints of discrimination and (b) suspended her for 10 days and attempted 22

-- 39 of 78 --

40
to subject her to criminal investigation after she refused, i.e., ample evidence to permit the jury to 1
answer the initial question affirmatively had it been phrased as a conjunct rather than a disjunct, we 2
cannot conclude that the compound questions in this case warrant a new trial. 3
III. LORE'S CROSS-APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF LIABILITY 4
Lore, in her cross-appeal, argues principally (A) that the court should have determined 5
that Guy was not entitled to qualified immunity, rather than submitting that ultimate issue to the jury 6
and dismissing her claims against Guy on the basis of the jury's determination, and (B) that the court 7
erred in granting summary judgment dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims based on 8
her removal from the PIO position. Lore's contention that, on the basis of the jury's factual findings 9
against Guy, the district court should have entered judgment in her favor for the $250,000 in injuries 10
Guy was found to have caused, in addition to the $250,000 the judgment awarded against the City, 11
is discussed in Part IV below. 12
Lore's additional contentions with regard to issues of liability are principally that the 13
district court erred in summarily dismissing her claims against Falge; that she is entitled to a new trial 14
on her retaliation claims against Boyle and Kerwin on the ground that the court improperly excluded 15
evidence relevant to those claims; and that she was entitled to a default judgment against all of the 16
defendants for their noncompliance with discovery orders. Those contentions, along with the 17
argument that Lore was entitled to an award of higher attorneys' fees, are discussed in Part III.C. 18
below. 19

-- 40 of 78 --

41
For the reasons set out in Parts III.A. and B. below, we find merit in some aspects of 1
Lore's contentions with respect to the liability of Guy, and we agree that the district court erred in 2
granting summary judgment dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on 3
the basis that Lore had suffered no materially adverse employment action. However, for the reasons 4
stated in Part V below, we only conditionally vacate the dismissal of Lore's HRL discrimination 5
claims. 6
A. Lore's Contentions as to Guy and the City 7
Over Lore's objection, the district court instructed the jury on federal law principles 8
governing public officials' entitlement to qualified immunity with respect to Lore's § 1983 claims, and 9
the Verdict Form included a question to be answered, if the jury found that Guy retaliated against 10
Lore, as to whether Guy was entitled to qualified immunity. Lore contends that the ultimate question 11
of Guy's entitlement to qualified immunity was a legal question for the court, not a question for the 12
jury, and that the court should have ruled, based on the jury's factual findings, that Guy was not 13
entitled to immunity. We agree in part. Once any material factual questions had been answered by 14
the jury, the ultimate matter of Guy's entitlement to qualified immunity should have been determined 15
by the court. Bearing in mind that the claims submitted to the jury against Guy were both those 16
asserted under § 1983 for violation of Lore's First Amendment right to file grievances and complain 17
of discrimination and those asserted under the HRL, we conclude that the court should have 18
determined that Guy (a) was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim but (b) did not 19
establish his state-law entitlement to immunity for violation of the HRL. 20

-- 41 of 78 --

42
1. Submission of Qualified Immunity Issues to the Jury 1
The federal-law principles governing entitlement to qualified immunity with respect 2
to alleged violations of the Constitution are well established. Qualified immunity protects public 3
officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages "insofar 4
as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 5
reasonable person would have known." Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. "[W]hether an official protected 6
by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally 7
turns on the 'objective legal reasonableness' of the action, Harlow, 457 U.S., at 819, assessed in light 8
of the legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken, id., at 818." Anderson v. 9
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). 10
The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly 11
established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct 12
was unlawful in the situation he confronted. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 13
603, 615 (1999) ("[A]s we explained in Anderson, the right allegedly violated 14
must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can 15
determine if it was clearly established"). 16
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (emphasis added). Thus, "[w]hether a defendant officer's 17
conduct was objectively reasonable is a mixed question of law and fact." Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 18
F.3d 344, 367 (2d Cir. 2007). "If there are unresolved factual issues which prevent an early 19
disposition of the defense, the jury should decide these issues on special interrogatories." Warren v. 20
Dwyer, 906 F.2d 70, 76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 (1990); see, e.g., Manganiello v. City 21
of New York, 612 F.3d 149, 165 (2d Cir. 2010); Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 109 (2d 22
Cir. 2004); Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 649 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1076 (1995). 23
Here, questions as to what situation confronted Guy, what acts he performed, and his 24
motivation in performing those acts were questions of fact; they were to be--and were--answered by 25

-- 42 of 78 --

43
the factfinder. In light of those factual findings, the question of whether it would be clear to a 1
reasonable public official, engaging in that conduct in that situation, that his conduct was unlawful 2
was a question of law. We conclude that although the district court properly put the fact questions 3
to the jury, it erred in having the jury decide the ultimate legal question, in light of the facts 4
established, of whether Guy, in his personal capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity. That legal 5
question should have been answered by the court. 6
2. Guy's Entitlement to Qualified Immunity 7
Lore contends that the court should have ruled that Guy was not entitled to qualified 8
immunity. We disagree with respect to Lore's retaliation claim based on federal law, i.e., her claim 9
under § 1983 that Guy retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment right to file 10
grievances and complaints of discrimination; but we agree with respect to her claim under the HRL. 11
a. Immunity with Respect to Lore's § 1983 Claim 12
As indicated in Part III.A.1. above, federal law accords a public official qualified 13
immunity from personal liability in a civil suit for damages if his performance of a discretionary 14
function did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a 15
reasonable person in his position would have known. In order to prevail on her § 1983 retaliation 16
claim, Lore was required to prove (and the jury found that she had proven), inter alia, that because 17
of her exercise of her First Amendment rights, she suffered a materially adverse action. See, e.g., Cox 18
v. Warwick Valley Central School District, 654 F.3d 267, 272 (2d Cir. 2011). 19

-- 43 of 78 --

44
Prior to 2006, our decisions in cases involving First Amendment retaliation claims 1
brought by public employees against their employers under § 1983 had not made clear that the 2
adverse-action element of such a claim need not involve adverse action related to the plaintiff's 3
employment. Some of our opinions did not refer to the need for an employment connection, perhaps 4
because there was no dispute that there in fact was such a connection, see, e.g., Locurto v. Safir, 264 5
F.3d 154, 158, 166 (2d Cir. 2001) (termination of employment); Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 105, 6
109 (2d Cir. 1998) (10-day suspension without pay). In 1999, however, i.e., a year before Guy's 7
retaliation against Lore through his comments to the media, we had held that a plaintiff employee 8
complaining of retaliation by his employer for exercise of his First Amendment rights--similarly to 9
one complaining of retaliation in violation of Title VII, see generally Kessler, 461 F.3d at 206-07 10
(discussing cases)--was required to show an adverse action that was related to employment, see 11
Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 110 (2d Cir. 1999). In Morris, which involved claims under § 1983, 12
not Title VII, we affirmed the dismissal of one of the claims, stating that "Morris does not allege that 13
the transfer here involved any change in job description, days and hours, duties, benefits, or 14
opportunity for promotion. It follows that the transfer was not an adverse employment action." 196 15
F.3d at 113. 16
In 2006, the Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 17
U.S. 53 (2006) ("Burlington"), ruled that even on a retaliation claim under Title VII, the materially 18
adverse action that must be proven need not be squarely tied to the terms or conditions of the 19
plaintiff's employment. See id. at 67 ("The scope of the [Title VII] antiretaliation provision extends 20
beyond workplace-related or employment-related retaliatory acts and harm."); id. at 70. The 21
Burlington Court reasoned that "[a]n employer can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking 22

-- 44 of 78 --

45
actions not directly related to his employment or by causing him harm outside the workplace," such 1
as by "fil[ing] false criminal charges against [a] former employee who complained about 2
discrimination." Id. at 63-64 (emphasis in original). "A provision limited to employment-related 3
actions would not deter the many forms that effective retaliation can take." Id. at 64. Thus, the Court 4
ruled that the proper interpretation of the adverse action requirement in Title VII is that 5
a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the 6
challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might 7
have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of 8
discrimination. 9
Id. at 68 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court stated, "Our holding today makes clear that 10
the jury was not required to find that the challenged actions were related to the terms or conditions 11
of employment." Id. at 70. If the adverse-action element of a Title VII retaliation action can be 12
satisfied by an action causing the employee harm outside the workplace, a fortiori an act in retaliation 13
for the employee's exercise of a constitutional right need not be tied to harm in the workplace. 14
In the present case, the district court's jury charge--which apparently inadvertently 15
imposed on Lore the unduly high burden of proving the adverse-action element "beyond a 16
preponderance"--straddled the pre- and post-2006 analyses of the controlling principle: 17
To constitute a materially adverse employment action, plaintiff must prove 18
beyond a preponderance of the evidence that she was subject to an 19
employment action which would discourage a reasonable employee from 20
coming forward with a complaint of discrimination. In other words, plaintiff 21
must prove that the alleged acts of retaliation would cause a reasonable 22
employee to hesitate when deciding whether to complain of discrimination at 23
the workplace. As with the other elements, you must find for the defendant on 24
each claim, if any, for which you determine the alleged act of retaliation was 25
not materially adverse. 26
(Tr. 1229-30 (emphases added).) 27

-- 45 of 78 --

46
As the jury could reasonably conclude that a public comment by the municipality's top 1
lawyer implying or "confirm[ing]" (Tr. 905) that Lore, a police officer, had stolen fellow officers' 2
paychecks, though not affecting the terms or conditions of Lore's employment, might well have 3
dissuaded a reasonable police officer from making a complaint of discrimination, Guy was properly 4
found to have unlawfully retaliated against Lore. But our express ruling in Morris v. Lindau in 1999 5
impedes the conclusion that the principle that the adverse-action element could be satisfied by harmful 6
effects outside the workplace would have been clear to a reasonable corporation counsel at the time 7
of Guy's comments to the media in 2000. And as we have not been pointed to any trial evidence from 8
which the jury could reasonably have inferred that those comments caused a material change in Lore's 9
employment status or the terms and conditions of her employment, we must conclude that Guy was 10
entitled to qualified immunity on Lore's § 1983 claim against him for his retaliatory comments to the 11
media in 2000. 12
We note that the City contends that if Guy is entitled to qualified immunity, the City 13
is immune from responsibility for his actions. We reject this contention because qualified immunity 14
is a defense only on a claim asserted against an individual in his personal capacity. A suit against an 15
individual in his personal capacity is not a suit against the governmental entity. See, e.g., Kentucky 16
v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 (1985). A claim asserted against an individual in his official capacity, 17
on the other hand, is in effect a claim against the governmental entity itself, rather than a suit against 18
the individual personally, for "official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading 19
an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent," Monell v. Department of Social Services, 20
436 U.S. 658, 691 n.55 (1978). But "municipalities have no immunity from damages for liability 21
flowing from their constitutional violations." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 657 22

-- 46 of 78 --

47
(1980); see, e.g., Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d at 111 ("municipalities have no immunity defense, either 1
qualified or absolute, in a suit under § 1983"). Thus, with respect to an official-capacity claim, 2
qualified immunity is simply not a defense. See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991); 3
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. at 167. However, the City is not liable for Guy's violation of Lore's 4
constitutional rights for the reasons discussed in Part III.A.3. below. 5
b. Immunity With Respect to Lore's HRL Claim 6
We reach a different conclusion with respect to the matter of qualified immunity for 7
Guy on Lore's claim under the HRL. While the analyses of claims of employment discrimination or 8
retaliation are the same under Title VII and the HRL, see, e.g., Farias v. Instructional Systems, Inc., 9
259 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2001); Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 60 (2d Cir. 1997), the principles 10
of New York law governing the availability of qualified immunity for violations of state law differ 11
somewhat from the above federal principles applicable to violations of federal law. 12
Preliminarily, we note that Guy and the City, citing only Mon v. City of New York, 13
78 N.Y.2d 309, 313, 574 N.Y.S.2d 529, 532 (1991), and Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565, 14
572-73 (2d Cir. 1986), contend that Guy is entitled not just to qualified immunity but even to 15
"absolute immunity for his comments to the press" on the ground "that Guy's comments were made 16
in his capacity as Corporation Counsel and were made in defense of the City of Syracuse in pending 17
civil litigation." (Defendants' reply brief on appeal at 35.) We are unpersuaded. 18
New York law does recognize absolute immunity with respect to the performance of 19
discretionary functions that are judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutorial, or quasi-prosecutorial, see, e.g., 20
Arteaga v. State of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 212, 216, 532 N.Y.S.2d 57, 59 (1988); Della Pietra v. State 21

-- 47 of 78 --

48
of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 792, 796, 530 N.Y.S.2d 510, 511-13 (1988) ("Della Pietra"); Tarter v. State 1
of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 511, 518, 510 N.Y.S.2d 528, 531 (1986); and perhaps it would deem an 2
attorney who is defending a governmental entity in ongoing litigation to be entitled to immunity 3
similar to that of a prosecutor, cf. Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d at 569-70, 572-73 (affirming, 4
under federal law, the absolute-immunity dismissal of a defense attorney for the State of New York 5
who, "on behalf of the State of New York during the course of and in connection with ongoing 6
litigation," had withheld certain information from the plaintiff). But here we focus principally on 7
Guy's first set of comments to the media, for defendants did not seek separate questions as to which 8
of Guy's sets of comments caused Lore injury, and we think it highly likely that the jury viewed the 9
implication that a police officer was a thief, stealing from her fellow policemen, as inherently far more 10
damaging to the officer's reputation and prospects for occupational advancement, and far more 11
upsetting, than the statements that she simply was not doing her job well. Guy's first comments to the 12
press--resulting in the November 2000 Post-Standard article erroneously stating that Lore had taken 13
other officers' "checks" and implying that she had stolen them--were made before there was any 14
pending litigation, and his comments had no discernable judicial character. Indeed, in testifying at 15
trial, Guy characterized his November statements to the press as merely responding to a freedom-of- 16
information request. (See Tr. 903, 905-07.) 17
Further, the authorities cited by Guy and the City are inapposite; neither Barrett v. 18
United States nor Mon v. City of New York involved statements by a government attorney to the 19
media. And the latter, an action brought by a plaintiff who was shot by a policeman, did not involve 20
either an attorney defendant or any question of individual immunity. Rather, Mon dealt with the 21
question of whether a municipality "ha[d] governmental immunity from liability for negligence in 22

-- 48 of 78 --

49
hiring." 78 N.Y.2d at 311, 574 N.Y.S.2d at 530. Guy has not shown any entitlement to absolute 1
immunity. 2
Nor can we conclude that New York law entitled Guy to qualified immunity. In 3
contrast to the federal standard, which is "objectively reasonable reliance on existing law," Kentucky 4
v. Graham, 473 U.S. at 167; see, e.g., Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, the New York standard for entitlement 5
to qualified immunity has both objective and subjective components. The objective component 6
distinguishes between official acts that are "discretionary" and those that are "ministerial" (although 7
the line between the two categories is not always clear, see, e.g., Tangocross v. Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 8
34, 40-41, 471 N.Y.S.2d 73, 76-77 (1983)), making such immunity available only with respect to 9
those that are discretionary, see, e.g., Mon v. City of New York, 78 N.Y.2d at 313, 574 N.Y.S.2d 10
at 531-32. The subjective component makes qualified immunity entirely unavailable if there are 11
"undisturbed findings of bad faith," Della Pietra, 71 N.Y.2d at 795, 530 N.Y.S.2d at 511; see also 12
Jules Rabin Associates, Inc. v. Landon, 38 N.Y.2d at 828, 382 N.Y.S.2d at 45 ("affirmative defense 13
of qualified privilege may be overcome by malice established by showing recklessness with regard 14
to the truth or falsity of otherwise defamatory statements"). 15
We need not decide whether Guy's initial statements to the media were discretionary 16
or ministerial, however, for even if they were more than ministerial, Guy plainly cannot be said to 17
have met his burden of proof on the subjective component of the New York standard, i.e., the burden 18
of showing that his statements to the media were not made in bad faith. To begin with, we note that 19
although defendants were insistent that the district court should instruct the jury to make the ultimate 20
determinations (if any were needed) with respect to qualified immunity, defendants' proposed 21
instructions to the jury--which included one relating to qualified immunity on claims under "§1983"-- 22

-- 49 of 78 --

50
contained no proposed instruction with respect to immunity on claims under the HRL, and they did 1
not mention Guy's burden of proving lack of bad faith in order to prevail on that defense. Similarly, 2
defendants' proposed interrogatories to the jury included no question on the issue of good or bad faith. 3
Moreover, Guy's testimony at trial fell well short of a meaningful attempt to show lack 4
of bad faith. Guy testified that he received a call from a reporter seeking confirmation that an SPD 5
officer had been suspended for copying payroll or personnel records (see Tr. 904-05), that he had 6
spoken to Falge, who informed him that an employee had been suspended for copying paycheck 7
"stubs" (id. at 907), and that Guy informed the reporter that her "information . . . was accurate" (id. 8
at 907, 908). But Guy did not testify to exactly what information the reporter told him she had. The 9
ensuing article referred to "check[s]" rather than pay stubs; it stated that Lore was suspended for 10
"taking" them, easily lending itself to the inference that she had stolen them; and every statement in 11
the November article was expressly attributed to Guy. Guy did not testify that the article in any way 12
went beyond what he had "confirm[ed]" to the reporter. And it may not have been lost on the jury that 13
Guy's failure to attempt to distance himself from the article's implication that Lore had stolen checks 14
was entirely consistent with his attorney's arguments at trial that Lore copied other officers' "checks" 15
(e.g., Tr. 82, 83, 1141, 1143); that Lore engaged in a "check scheme" (id. at 82, 83); that Lore "took" 16
her fellow "sergeants' . . . paycheck[s]" (id. at 84; see id. at 1142); that Lore went to the ABC Office 17
to "take payroll checks" (id. at 1141); and that at the September hearing Lore "show[ed] that she stole 18
the checks" (id. at 83). The jury, which evidently credited Lore's testimony that she had not taken 19
checks, had not stolen anything, and had only copied pay stubs, was easily entitled to infer that Guy 20
was responsible for the November article's indication that Lore had stolen her fellow officers' 21
paychecks. 22

-- 50 of 78 --

51
Ironically, the jury, while being inappropriately asked to determine the legal question 1
with regard to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim, was not asked to make a factual finding as to 2
whether Guy had acted in good faith, a fact that was essential to his state-law defense of qualified 3
immunity on the HRL claim. Not being given a question on that issue, and not being instructed on 4
the state-law qualified-immunity issue of bad faith, the jury made no finding as to whether Guy had 5
met his burden of proving that he did not act in bad faith. In circumstances in which a jury has been 6
asked to return a special verdict in the form of answers to fact questions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a), but, 7
without timely objection, has not been given a question on a material fact, that question is to be 8
answered by the court, see, e.g., Cullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 730-31 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 483 9
U.S. 1021 (1987), overruled on other grounds by Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, 10
Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987). In many cases, the court in answering an omitted question will 11
theoretically be free to make a finding favoring either side. However, given the parties' Seventh 12
Amendment rights to have factual issues decided by a jury, "the jury's verdict on the common factual 13
issues precludes a contrary finding of fact by the court . . . ." Wade v. Orange County Sheriff's Office, 14
844 F.2d 951, 954 (2d Cir. 1988); see also LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412, 432 (2d Cir. 15
1995) (court cannot, given principles of collateral estoppel, make its own findings that are inconsistent 16
with the findings of the jury). 17
Here, the jury, having been instructed that Lore was required to prove each element 18
of her claims against each defendant by a preponderance of the evidence (see, e.g., Tr. 1224-25), 19
found expressly that Lore had proven that Guy made negative comments about her to news reporters, 20
that when he made those comments he knew she had made complaints of discrimination, and that her 21
complaints of discrimination were "a motivating factor for defendant Corporation Counsel Rick Guy's 22

-- 51 of 78 --

52
acts of retaliation" (Verdict Form at 5-6). Given the jury's finding, by a preponderance of the 1
evidence, that Guy was motivated to retaliate against Lore because of her protected activity in making 2
complaints of discrimination, the court would not have been free to make a finding that Guy had 3
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he had not acted in bad faith. 4
Accordingly, Guy did not establish his entitlement to qualified immunity with respect 5
to Lore's claim that he retaliated against her in violation of the HRL. We agree with Lore that the 6
judgment should not have dismissed that claim. 7
8
3. Liability of the City for the Actions of Guy 9
Lore contends that the jury's findings that Guy unlawfully retaliated against her should 10
be imputed to the City and that the district court should have entered judgment in her favor not only 11
requiring the City to pay her $250,000 in damages on account of the jury's findings against the City 12
itself, but also requiring the City and Guy to pay her an additional $250,000 in damages on account 13
of the jury's findings as to the conduct of Guy. Lore's imputation contention has merit only with 14
respect to her claim under the HRL; and we cannot conclude that the imputation of HRL liability to 15
the City for Guy's conduct would justify an increase in the award of damages. 16
The jury's findings against Guy on Lore's § 1983 claim cannot properly be used to 17
impute liability for his acts to the City. Although Guy was sued in both his personal and official 18
capacities, a suit against an official in his official capacity 19
is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the 20
entity. Thus, while an award of damages against an official in his personal 21
capacity can be executed only against the official's personal assets, a plaintiff 22
seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must 23
look to the government entity itself. 24

-- 52 of 78 --

53
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 (emphasis in original). A § 1983 claim against a municipality 1
or against an official sued in his official capacity, however, cannot be sustained unless the plaintiff 2
shows that the violation of her federal rights was the result of a municipal custom or policy. See, e.g., 3
Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. 4
[Although] to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to 5
show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation 6
of a federal right[,] . . . . [m]ore is required in an official-capacity action, . . . 7
for a governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is 8
a "'moving force'" behind the deprivation[;] . . . thus, in an official-capacity 9
suit the entity's "policy or custom" must have played a part in the violation of 10
federal law. 11
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 (first emphasis in original; second and third emphases added). 12
The district court dismissed Lore's § 1983 claim against the City in Lore I, see 583 13
F.Supp.2d at 381 n.7, and no substantial evidence was introduced to show that the acts of Guy or other 14
individual defendants were performed pursuant to a custom or policy of the City. Thus, the claims 15
against individual defendants in their official capacities could not be sustained. Guy could be found 16
liable only in his personal capacity, and such liability--assuming he were not entitled to qualified 17
immunity on the § 1983 claim--could not result in a judgment against the City. "Only in an official- 18
capacity action is a plaintiff who prevails entitled to look for relief, both on the merits and for fees, 19
to the governmental entity." Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. at 171. 20
The story begins differently with respect to Lore's claim under the HRL, however. No 21
municipal custom or policy need be proven to establish the liability of the City for violation of that 22
state law, for "[m]unicipalities surrendered their common-law tort immunity for the misfeasance of 23
their officers and employees long ago," Tango v. Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d at 40, 459 N.E.2d 182 at 76. 24
Guy's violation of Lore's rights under the HRL may properly be imputed to the City. Indeed, the court 25

-- 53 of 78 --

54
advised the jury that if it found any of the individual defendants (other than the long-retired Lemm) 1
to have retaliated against Lore in violation of the HRL, "then the City is responsible." (Tr. 37; see 2
also id. at 1244 ("If you find against any individuals, that will also be a finding against the City of 3
Syracuse.").) With respect to Lore's claims asserted under the HRL, those instructions were correct. 4
Accordingly, to the extent that the jury found that Guy violated the HRL in making negative 5
retaliatory comments about Lore to the press, the City is liable for that violation. The consequences 6
of the City's responsibility for the acts of Guy in this case are discussed in Part IV below. 7
B. Lore's Challenge to Summary Judgment Dismissing Her HRL Discrimination Claims 8
The principal employment action that Lore alleged constituted gender discrimination 9
was her removal as SPD spokesman in mid-1999. There appears to be no dispute that Lore was 10
removed from the PIO position by then-chief Foody upon the orders of then-Mayor Bernardi. In 11
support of her contention that her removal was motivated by gender discrimination, Lore testified in 12
deposition that she was replaced by a male and that Foody later told her, "in sum and substance," that 13
Mayor Bernardi told Foody that Lore had too much influence and that "a woman should be seen and 14
not heard." (Deposition of Therese Lore ("Lore Dep."), at 79-80.) 15
On the summary judgment motion by the City and most of the individual defendants, 16
the district court dismissed Lore's Title VII and HRL discrimination claims on various grounds. See 17
Lore I, 583 F.Supp.2d at 360-66, 376-80, 388. Because Title VII does not impose liability on 18
individuals, see, e.g., Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 377 (2d Cir. 2003); Wrighten v. 19
Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000); Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995) 20
("Tomka"), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), 21

-- 54 of 78 --

55
the court dismissed all of Lore's Title VII claims against the individual defendants. See Lore I, 583 1
F.Supp.2d at 359. Because under the relevant provision of federal law Lore was required to file her 2
EEOC complaint no more than 300 days after the allegedly discriminatory employment practice, see 3
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), the court dismissed all of her Title VII claims as to events prior to 4
September 19, 1999, on the ground that they were time-barred. See Lore I, 583 F.Supp.2d at 360. 5
Under the HRL, in contrast, liability for employment discrimination may be imposed 6
on individuals, see, e.g., Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d at 377; Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1317, and 7
the limitations period for bringing an HRL claim is not 300 days but rather is three years, see, e.g., 8
Bonner v. Guccione, 178 F.3d 581, 584 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the court concluded that Lore's 9
gender discrimination claims that her removal from the PIO position and her transfers to Technical 10
Operations and Patrol units violated the HRL were cognizable against the individual defendants and 11
were timely. See Lore I, 583 F.Supp.2d at 377. 12
Because discrimination claims under the HRL are evaluated using the same analytical 13
framework used in Title VII actions, the district court considered Lore's HRL discrimination claims 14
within the framework established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 15
(1973). To show a prima facie case within that framework, a plaintiff must proffer evidence (1) that 16
she is a member of a protected class, (2) that she is qualified for the position at issue, (3) that she was 17
subject to a materially adverse employment action, and (4) that the circumstances give rise to an 18
inference of invidious discrimination. See id. at 802 & n.13. The district court concluded that Lore 19
could not meet the third prong of this test: 20
With respect to the May 10, 1999, removal of plaintiff from her 21
position as Public Information Officer, plaintiff fails to establish how this 22
removal constituted an adverse employment action under the applicable case 23
law. It is undisputed that plaintiff's salary did not change as a result of her 24

-- 55 of 78 --

56
removal. Although plaintiff could nevertheless demonstrate an adverse 1
employment action by showing a substantial reduction in material 2
responsibilities, . . . plaintiff does not submit any evidence of a reduction in 3
responsibilities following the May 10, 1999, transfer. Much to the contrary, 4
plaintiff was given the opportunity in her deposition to explain whether she 5
had "fewer responsibilities" after her removal from the Public Information 6
Officer position, but plaintiff expressly declined to characterize her 7
responsibilities as "fewer" and instead described her new responsibilities as 8
"different." 9
Lore I, 583 F.Supp.2d at 377 (quoting Lore Dep. 78-79 (emphases ours)). Although noting that the 10
fact that Lore was given "different, rather than fewer, responsibilities does not remove the possibility 11
that the alleged discriminatory act was sufficiently adverse, . . . so long as a reasonable person would 12
believe their working conditions were worsened by the change in responsibilities," Lore I, 583 13
F.Supp.2d at 377-78, the court concluded that Lore had not shown that a reasonable person would 14
have that belief. It dismissed Lore's HRL claims of discrimination based on her removal from the PIO 15
position, stating that 16
plaintiff admits in her deposition that she received the same benefits, salary, 17
and work schedule following the May 10, 1999, transfer . . . and fails to direct 18
the Court's attention to any evidence of why a reasonable person, let alone 19
herself, believed her employment conditions had been worsened by the May 20
10, 1999, transfer. 21
Id. at 378. 22
On appeal, Lore contends that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law 23
that her removal from the PIO position was not a materially adverse employment action. We agree. 24
"[T]he protections provided by Title VII are not limited to instances of discrimination in pecuniary 25
emoluments." De La Cruz v. New York City Human Resources Administration, 82 F.3d 16, 21 (2d 26
Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The transfer of an employee from an "'elite'" position 27
to one that is "less prestigious . . . with little opportunity for professional growth" is sufficient to 28

-- 56 of 78 --

57
permit a jury to infer that the transfer was a materially adverse employment action. Id.; see, e.g., 1
Burlington, 548 U.S. at 71 ("a jury could reasonably conclude" that a reassignment from a position 2
carrying "an indication of prestige" to one imposing "duties [that] were by all accounts more arduous 3
and dirtier" "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee" (internal quotation marks 4
omitted)); Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127, 134 (2d Cir. 2008) (evidence of a "transfer 5
[that] did not affect [the plaintiff's] wages or benefits, [but] resulted in a 'less distinguished title' and 6
'significantly diminished material responsibilities,'" is "sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude" 7
that the transfer "constituted an adverse employment action"); Patrolmen's Benevolent Association 8
v. City of New York, 310 F.3d 43, 51 (2d Cir.) ("A lateral transfer that does not result in a reduction 9
in pay or benefits may be an adverse employment action so long as the transfer alters the terms and 10
conditions of the plaintiff's employment in a materially negative way."), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1032 11
(2002); Rodriguez v. Board of Education, 620 F.2d 362, 366 (2d Cir. 1980) (transfer of art teacher 12
from junior high school to elementary school held to be an adverse employment action). 13
In the present case, in the PIO position, Lore was assigned to the office of the chief of 14
police, dealt with the media, and was the spokesman for the Department. When she was removed 15
from that position, her duties for several weeks entailed merely doing "odds and ends in the chief's 16
office" (Lore Dep. 78); she was then reassigned to Technical Operations, see Lore I, 583 F.Supp.2d 17
at 356. Shortly thereafter, she was again reassigned, this time to supervise the uniformed patrol units, 18
see id.; and in little more than half a year, she herself was required to wear a uniform while serving 19
in a community relations unit in which none of the male sergeants was required to wear a uniform, 20
see id. at 361. We conclude that a rational juror could find that, even though Lore's rank and salary 21
were not reduced, a reasonable police officer could easily view the change from the position of public 22

-- 57 of 78 --

58
information officer in the office of the chief of police, to that of general factotum in that office and 1
thence to equipment, patrol, and uniformed positions, as materially adverse changes. Accordingly, 2
Lore's HRL claims for gender discrimination based on her removal from the PIO position should not 3
have been summarily dismissed on the ground that she failed to proffer sufficient proof of a materially 4
adverse employment action. 5
However, Lore has not argued on appeal that any individual defendant other than 6
Bernardi was involved in the decision to remove her as PIO. In her deposition, Lore laid her removal 7
from the PIO position squarely at the door of Bernardi (see Lore Dep. 76), and she has not called to 8
our attention any proffer in the district court to show that any other individual was involved in her 9
removal from that position. Thus, with respect to that removal, we see no basis for vacating the 10
summary dismissals of any defendants other than Bernardi and the City. As to those two defendants, 11
we will conditionally vacate the dismissal of Lore's HRL claims of gender discrimination in her 12
removal from the PIO position; and we will give Lore the option to pursue those claims in accordance 13
with the conditions set out in Part V below. 14
15
C. Lore's Other Contentions 16
Lore's other contentions, aside from her contention that she should be awarded an 17
additional $250,000 in damages on the basis of the jury's findings against Guy, do not require 18
extended discussion. She contends principally that the district court erred in summarily dismissing 19
her claims against Falge and that she is entitled to a new trial on her retaliation claims against Boyle 20
and Kerwin on the ground that the court improperly excluded evidence relevant to those claims. She 21
also contends that the district court should have entered a default judgment against all of the 22

-- 58 of 78 --

59
defendants for noncompliance with discovery orders. Finally, she contends that she was entitled to 1
attorneys' fees calculated at an hourly rate higher than $210. We are unpersuaded. 2
1. Falge 3
Lore argues that the district court's granting of summary judgment dismissing her 4
claims against Falge "deprived [her] of the opportunity to recover punitive damages." (Lore's brief 5
on appeal at 39.) Her one-sentence explanation as to the basis for this challenge states simply that 6
"the District Court's improper and super technical construction of Plaintiff's complaint (A-3616-3617) 7
was error." (Id.) This argument fails to meet the requirement of the Federal Rules of Appellate 8
Procedure that an appellant's brief on appeal must contain not only the party's contentions, but also 9
"the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities," Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see id. Rule 10
28.1(c)(2) (principal brief of appellee-cross-appellant "must comply with Rule 28(a), except that the 11
brief need not include a statement of the case or a statement of the facts"). We decline to address 12
Lore's unenlightening challenge to the dismissal of Falge. 13
2. Boyle 14
The jury found that Lore had not proven her retaliation claims against Boyle because 15
she did not show that, at the time he barred her from the ABC Office and insisted that her future 16
informational requests be in the form of memoranda, he knew of her complaints of discrimination. 17
Lore contends that she is entitled to a new trial of her claims against Boyle because the district court 18
refused to allow her to introduce a document--which she characterizes as "direct evidence" that Boyle 19
banned Lore from the ABC Office as retaliation for her complaints of discrimination (Lore's brief on 20

-- 59 of 78 --

60
appeal at 36)--to show that he had that knowledge. This contention and characterization are meritless. 1
Lore conceded at trial that Boyle issued the instructions barring Lore from the ABC 2
Office and imposing the written-memorandum requirement on July 14, 2000. (See Tr. 1031-32.) The 3
document that Lore claims was wrongly excluded--an interoffice memorandum comparing the 4
overtime assignments given to Lore and others--was dated July 26, 2000. The document states 5
nothing about the Boyle's knowledge as to Lore's filing of complaints of discrimination and does not 6
indicate when Boyle requested the information provided. As such the document was not competent 7
to fill the gap in Lore's proof, and it was well within the trial court's discretion to exclude it. 8
3. Kerwin 9
The jury found Lore's claims against Kerwin unproven because, although he knew of 10
Lore's complaints of discrimination, Lore had not proven that his conduct was motivated by them. 11
Lore contends that she is entitled to a new trial of her retaliation claims against Kerwin on two 12
grounds. First she argues that "the credible evidence received during trial does not support the jury's 13
finding that Defendant Michael Kerwin was not motivated by Sgt. Lore's EEOC charge when he 14
attempted to read Sgt. Lore her Miranda warnings over the phone." (Lore's brief on appeal at 36; see 15
id. at 36-37 ("The jury's finding that . . . Kerwin . . . was not [so] motivated . . . lacks a sufficient basis 16
in the record to support the jury's verdict.").) Second, she argues that the district court abused its 17
discretion in refusing to allow her to call as a witness SPD officer Katherine Lee, who had sued 18
Kerwin for retaliation (see Lore's brief on appeal at 37-39). We reject these arguments. 19
In connection with her contention that the jury's finding in favor of Kerwin on the 20
motivation issue was unsupported by the evidence, Lore argues that she "satisfied her burden in 21

-- 60 of 78 --

61
showing that Kerwin knew about her EEOC complaint and took an adverse action against her." (Id. 1
at 37.) This argument misperceives, inter alia, the elements of a retaliation claim and the allocation 2
of the burden of proof. As the claimant, Lore had the burden of proving not only that the defendant 3
in question had knowledge of her complaints of discrimination and took materially adverse action 4
against her, but also that that action was motivated by her complaints of discrimination. (See Part 5
II.B.2.b. above.) The jury found, apparently based on its assessments of the credibility of the 6
witnesses, that Lore did not meet her burden of proving that Kerwin had a retaliatory motivation. 7
Lore's contention that the jury should have disbelieved Kerwin's testimony or weighed the evidence 8
differently provides no basis for undoing the verdict. 9
Lore also contends that the testimony of Lee "would have provided additional evidence 10
that Kerwin's actions were motivated by an intent to retaliate on account of Sgt. Lore's complaints of 11
discrimination" (Lore's brief on appeal at 38). Even a sound proffer in support of such a contention 12
would not be dispositive, for the court may exclude even evidence that is relevant "if its probative 13
value is substantially outweighed by" the danger of, inter alia, unfair prejudice, or confusion of the 14
issues, or misleading the jury, or wasting time. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The court "[i]s not required to 15
allow the trial to be diverted into an inquiry into an entirely different incident involving to a 16
significant extent different people, places and events." Barrett v. Orange County Human Rights 17
Commission, 194 F.3d 341, 347 (2d Cir. 1999). A decision to exclude evidence following a Rule 403 18
balancing analysis is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Barrett, 194 F.3d at 347; 19
Perry, 115 F.3d at 150. 20
Here, Judge Hurd--who was familiar with Lee's case, as he was the judge to whom it 21
was assigned--declined to allow Lee, who had filed her EEOC claim in 2003, to testify in Lore's case 22

-- 61 of 78 --

62
"under the limited issues that are before this Court regarding the allegations of retaliation back in the 1
year 2000" (Tr. 542; see also id. at 25-27). In support of her contention that this was an abuse of 2
discretion, Lore submits documents or arguments that are of doubtful utility or reliability. 3
First, in her main brief on appeal, she cites an affirmation by Lee describing "testimony 4
[that] would have been elicited from [Lee]" (Lore's brief on appeal at 38). However, that affirmation-- 5
which is dated June 16, 2009, nearly three weeks after the end of Lore's trial, and hence was not 6
before the district court at the time it barred Lee from testifying--states that Lee is "aware" that 7
"Kerwin has made statements and committed acts which reflect a bias against me and other women 8
who filed complaints of discrimination" (Affirmation of Katherine J. Lee dated June 16, 2009 ¶ 4); 9
the affirmation does not mention Lore. Nor does it specify when the events it describes took place, 10
except to say that one incident occurred in April 2005 (see id. ¶ 5). We cannot conclude that Lore 11
should have a new trial based on a document created after trial, citing experiences of Lee that 12
apparently occurred several years later than the events at issue here. 13
Second, Lore states that she and Lee were "women [who had] filed complaints of 14
gender discrimination and both were subjected to retaliatory conduct by Defendant Kerwin" (Lore's 15
reply brief on appeal at 14 (emphasis in original)); that "the Lee action was tried in March[] 2010 and 16
resulted in a favorable verdict for Officer Lee" (id.); and that "Judge Hurd sustained the verdict on 17
the basis that the evidence revealed decision-makers, including Defendant Kerwin, retaliated against 18
[Lee] for opposing discrimination. See Lee v. City of Syracuse, et al., N.D.N.Y., 5:03-CV-1329, Dkt. 19
No. 209" (Lore's reply brief on appeal at 14). There is no question that both Lore and Lee filed 20
complaints against Kerwin containing discrimination and retaliation allegations. However, Lore's 21
statement that the Lee action "resulted in a favorable verdict for Officer Lee" omits the facts that that 22

-- 62 of 78 --

63
favorable verdict was only against the City, see Lee v. City of Syracuse, No. 5:03-CV-1329 1
(N.D.N.Y. March 23, 2010) (Verdict Form), and that all of Lee's claims against Kerwin had in fact 2
been dismissed in 2009, see Lee v. City of Syracuse, 603 F.Supp.2d 417, 450 (N.D.N.Y. 2009). 3
Further, the document cited by Lore in support of the statement that Judge Hurd upheld the judgment 4
in favor of Lee on the basis that Kerwin had retaliated against Lee--"Dkt. No. 209"--turns out to be 5
a transcript of an argument before the district court in which Kerwin's name is nowhere mentioned. 6
We see no basis for reversal in the court's exclusion of the testimony of Lee. 7
8
4. Request for Discovery Sanctions 9
Lore contends that the district court erred in refusing to impose discovery sanctions 10
on defendants for what she calls "REPEATED, MULTIPLE AND FLAGRANT ABUSES OF 11
THE COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDERS." (Lore's brief on appeal at 44; see id. at 44-53.) She 12
states that "[her] attorney's affirmation filed with the District Court sets forth in detail the gross and 13
repeated discovery violations of these Defendants." (Id. at 44.) However, she provides neither the 14
date of that affirmation nor a record citation for where it can be found. 15
We assume that the affirmation referred to is the Affirmation of A.J. Bosman dated 16
May 8, 2009. This affirmation accuses defendants of "deceit and misrepresentations" (id. ¶ 2), 17
complaining principally (a) that Lore made a demand in April 2001 for "a list of all employees who 18
ha[d] been reprimanded, counseled, or reported as having violated any and all rules of the City of 19
Syracuse Police Department for the immediate past three years" (id. ¶ 8 (internal quotation marks 20
omitted)); (b) that "[d]efendants" persistently maintained that the request was "unduly burdensome" 21
(id. ¶ 9; see id. ¶ 11); and (c) that Bosman had discovered in 2007, in a different lawsuit, that 22

-- 63 of 78 --

64
"[d]efendants" in fact had such a list (id. ¶ 19). Lore requested that the court punish defendants by 1
entering a default judgment against them. 2
Although Bosman's affirmation suggests that Lore had been denied "repeated" 3
"requests for sanctions" (id. ¶ 14), the affirmation gives no dates of or record citations to such requests 4
or denials; nor has any such information been provided in Lore's briefs on appeal. We have found in 5
the record a 2006 letter to the magistrate judge to whom discovery matters were referred, requesting 6
the imposition of sanctions for what even then was called "a flagrant or at least cavalier disregard of" 7
a discovery order (Letter from A.J. Bosman to Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles dated January 13, 8
2006 ("Bosman Letter"), at 1). That request was denied by endorsed order dated January 23, 2006, 9
stating that the denial was without prejudice to Lore's right to make a sanctions motion pursuant to 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 11
So far as we are aware, Lore did not make such a motion until more than three years 12
later, when, on May 8, 2009, citing evidence discovered in 2007, she moved for a default judgment-- 13
10 days before the start of trial. 14
We review a denial of a motion for Rule 37 discovery sanctions for abuse of discretion. 15
See Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002); cf. 16
Perry, 115 F.3d at 149, 154 (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to denial of request, based on 17
allegedly "abusive discovery and vexatious tactics," for sanctions pursuant to, inter alia, Fed. R. Civ. 18
P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927). In analyzing a district court's ruling on a request for sanctions, we 19
"giv[e] recognition to the premise that the district court is better situated than the court of appeals to 20
marshal the pertinent facts and apply the fact-dependent legal standard that informs its determination 21
as to whether sanctions are warranted." Perry, 115 F.3d at 154 (internal quotation marks omitted). 22

-- 64 of 78 --

65
Lore has called nothing to our attention that suggests that the district court's denial of 1
her motion for sanctions on the eve of trial, apparently based on information received years earlier, 2
was an abuse of discretion. 3
5. Request for Additional Attorneys' Fees 4
Following the district court's denial of the parties' posttrial motions, Lore moved for 5
an award of $368,934.29 in attorneys' fees, which included fees for Bosman based on an hourly rate 6
of $275. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the district court awarded Lore $167,955.34 in fees and costs, 7
which included fees for Bosman at the hourly rate of $210. See Lore IV, 2009 WL 2957784, at *2. 8
On this appeal, Lore contends that "[t]he $210.00 hourly rate no longer represents the prevailing 9
hourly rate for experienced attorneys in the Northern District" (Lore's brief on appeal at 54) and that 10
it was an abuse of discretion for the court to award her fees based on that rate. We disagree. 11
We review a district court's award of attorneys' fees under § 1988 for abuse of 12
discretion, see, e.g., Bergerson v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 652 F.3d 277, 285 (2d Cir. 13
2011) ("Bergerson"), mindful that "'[a]buse of discretion'--already one of the most deferential 14
standards of review--takes on special significance when reviewing fee decisions because the district 15
court, which is intimately familiar with the nuances of the case, is in a far better position to make 16
[such] decisions than is an appellate court, which must work from a cold record," McDaniel v. County 17
of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2010) (other internal quotation marks omitted). 18
In Bergerson--which involved a trial before Judge Hurd of Title VII and HRL claims 19
brought by a plaintiff represented at trial by the same attorney who represents Lore--the successful 20
plaintiff requested a fee award based on an hourly rate of $275. The district court made its fee award 21

-- 65 of 78 --

66
on the basis of an hourly rate of $210. See 652 F.3d at 281. We affirmed, stating in part as follows: 1
Here, the District Court, quoting Picinich v. United Parcel Serv., No. 2
5:01-CV-01868, 2008 WL 1766746, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), found 3
that "'[t]he prevailing hourly rates in this district, which are what a reasonable, 4
paying client would be willing to pay, are $210 per hour for an experienced 5
attorney, $150 per hour for an attorney with more than four years experience, 6
$120 per hour for an attorney with less than four years experience, and $80 per 7
hour for paralegals.'" The study upon which Picinich ultimately relies was 8
undertaken by a district court in the Northern District in 2005. See Arbor Hill 9
Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany, No. 03-CV-502, 10
2005 WL 670307, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2005). Since that time, more 11
recent surveys in Northern District cases have indicated that, for a civil rights 12
matter, the prevailing rate in the Northern District is higher than $210. See, 13
e.g., Luessenhop v. Clinton County, N.Y., 558 F.Supp.2d 247, 266 14
(N.D.N.Y.2008); Martinez v. Thompson, No. 9:04-cv-0440, 2008 WL 15
5157395, at *14 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2008). 16
In other cases, however, courts in the Northern District have continued 17
to apply the rates set forth in Arbor Hill. See, e.g., Lewis v. City of Albany 18
Police Dept., 554 F.Supp.2d 297, 298-301 (N.D.N.Y.2008); Paramount 19
Pictures Corp. v. Hopkins, No. 5:07-CV-593, 2008 WL 314541, at *5 20
(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008). Given that these courts have continued to adhere to 21
the rates set forth in Arbor Hill, the District Court's award of attorney's fees at 22
$210 per hour is "located within the range of permissible decisions" and does 23
not rest on an "erroneous view of the law." See Sims, 534 F.3d at 132 (internal 24
quotation marks omitted). Thus because our review is for abuse of discretion, 25
we hold that the District Court's award, while perhaps lagging behind the 26
market, was not an abuse of the court's discretion. 27
Bergerson, 652 F.3d at 290 (emphasis added). 28
In the present case, the district court's fee decision, rendered before its decision in 29
Bergerson, relied on essentially the same authorities to reach the same decision, to wit, that 30
[t]he prevailing hourly rates in this district, which are what a 31
reasonable, paying client would be willing to pay, are "$210 per hour for an 32
experienced attorney, $150 per hour for an attorney with more than four years 33
experience . . . ." Picinich, 2008 WL 1766746, at *2. 34
Lore IV, 2009 WL 2957784, at *1. We cannot conclude that the district court's calculation of fees 35
here, using the same analysis it would thereafter use in Bergerson, applying the same $210 hourly rate 36

-- 66 of 78 --

67
for the same attorney in the same type of case tried shortly before Bergerson, was an abuse of 1
discretion. 2
IV. THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE 3
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES TO WHICH LORE IS ENTITLED 4
Not surprisingly, the parties have widely differing views as to the amount of damages 5
to which Lore is entitled. As alternatives to its requests for judgment as a matter of law, the City 6
contends that this Court should overturn the district court's denials of its requests to (a) reduce the 7
jury's award of $100,000 against the City for reputational damages to $1 as nominal damages, on the 8
ground that Lore failed to prove any damage to her reputation, and (b) grant a new trial as to Lore's 9
emotional distress damages unless Lore accepts a remittitur of the award to $15,000, on the ground 10
that the jury's award of $150,000 against the City for emotional distress is excessive. 11
Lore, in opposition, contends that not only is she entitled to the $250,000 the jury 12
awarded her against the City, but that she is entitled to an additional $250,000--against Guy and the 13
City--because the jury awarded her that amount for the retaliatory conduct of Guy. She thus seeks 14
judgment awarding her compensatory damages totaling $500,000, and she seeks a trial on her 15
summarily dismissed HRL claims for discrimination. We cannot agree with either side, for we 16
conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the City's request for an 17
order of remittitur, but we reach that conclusion largely in light of the intertwined nature of Lore's 18
claims against the City and Guy, and we cannot conclude that such interrelated conduct warrants the 19
doubling of an already generous award. 20

-- 67 of 78 --

68
It is well established that the trial judge enjoys "discretion to grant a new trial if the 1
verdict appears to [the judge] to be against the weight of the evidence," and that "[t]his discretion 2
includes overturning verdicts for excessiveness and ordering a new trial without qualification, or 3
conditioned on the verdict winner's refusal to agree to a reduction (remittitur)." Gasperini v. Center 4
for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 433 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). A conditional 5
order of remittitur, requiring a plaintiff to choose either a new trial or a reduced verdict, may be 6
granted where, inter alia, "the award is intrinsically excessive in the sense of being greater than the 7
amount a reasonable jury could have awarded, although the surplus cannot be ascribed to a particular, 8
quantifiable error." Shu-Tao Lin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 742 F.2d 45, 49 (2d Cir. 1984) 9
(internal quotation marks omitted); see Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d at 165. "Where there is 10
no particular discernable error, we have generally held that a jury's damage award may not be set 11
aside as excessive unless 'the award is so high as to shock the judicial conscience and constitute a 12
denial of justice.'" Id. (quoting O'Neill v. Krzeminski, 839 F.2d 9, 13 (2d Cir. 1988) (other internal 13
quotation marks omitted)). Under New York law, which is pertinent to the extent that Lore was found 14
entitled to recover under the HRL, see, e.g., Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 418-19, an award is deemed 15
excessive "if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation," N.Y. C.P.L.R. 16
§ 5501(c). 17
In the present case, the district court denied the City's posttrial motion for a conditional 18
remittitur, stating that, "[b]ased upon evidence at trial, the jury's award of compensatory damages was 19
fair and reasonable, and did not shock the conscience." Lore III, 2009 WL 2473508, at *2. We 20
review that determination for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 434-36, taking into 21
account amounts awarded in other, comparable cases, see, e.g., DiSorbo v. Hoy, 343 F.3d 172, 183 22

-- 68 of 78 --

69
(2d Cir. 2003), and we will not "vacate or reduce a jury award merely because we would have granted 1
a lesser amount of damages," Nairn v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 837 F.2d 565, 566-67 (2d Cir. 2
1988). 3
Neither cases arising under federal law nor those arising under state law provide a clear 4
line as to whether an award of $150,000 for emotional distress on the basis of a trial record such as 5
that created in the present case deviates so materially from what would be reasonable compensation 6
as to shock the judicial conscience. This Court has, however, affirmed awards of $125,000 each to 7
plaintiffs for emotional distress resulting from age discrimination where the evidence of emotional 8
distress consisted only of "testimony establishing shock, nightmares, sleeplessness, humiliation, and 9
other subjective distress," as well as awards of $175,000 each where in addition there were "either 10
physical sequelae"--i.e., secondary physical results or consequences--"or professional treatment," 11
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 381 F.3d 56, 77 (2d Cir. 2004) ("Meacham"), vacated 12
and remanded for further consideration on other grounds, 544 U.S. 957 (2005); see id. at 77-78. In 13
Meacham, in which the emotional distress damages were awarded under the HRL, we rejected the 14
defendant's contention that those damage awards, for "garden variety emotional distress claims," 15
"should have been reduced to between $5,000 and $30,000," id. at 77. We observed that 16
New York cases vary widely in the amount of damages awarded for 17
mental anguish. Many do reduce awards to $30,000 or below. See, e.g., In re 18
Buffalo Athletic Club, 249 A.D.2d 986, 672 N.Y.S.2d 210, 211 (1998); In re 19
Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., 220 A.D.2d 668, 632 20
N.Y.S.2d 642, 644 (1995); In re New York State Office of Mental Retardation 21
and Developmental Disabilities, 183 A.D.2d 943, 583 N.Y.S.2d 580, 582 22
(1992); In re City of Fulton, 221 A.D.2d 971, 633 N.Y.S.2d 914, 915 (1995). 23
However, other cases uphold awards of more than $100,000 without discussion 24
of protracted suffering, truly egregious conduct, or medical treatment. See, 25
e.g., Rio Mar Rest. v. NYSDHR, 270 A.D.2d 47, 704 N.Y.S.2d 230, 231 26
(2000); In re Allender, 233 A.D.2d 153, 649 N.Y.S.2d 144, 145 (1996); 27
Boutique Indus., Inc. v. NYSDHR, 228 A.D.2d 171, 643 N.Y.S.2d 986, 986 28

-- 69 of 78 --

70
(1996). For truly egregious conduct with severe and verified results on a 1
complainant's mental and physical health, courts have upheld awards far in 2
excess of the amounts upheld here. See, e.g., In re New York City Transit 3
Auth., 181 A.D.2d 891, 581 N.Y.S.2d 426, 428-29 (1992). In addition, the 4
passage of time since the cited cases were decided could reasonably support 5
higher verdicts. When confronted with the range of mental anguish verdicts 6
approved under New York law, we do not find the verdicts in this case to 7
deviate substantially from verdicts awarded under similar circumstances. 8
Meacham, 381 F.3d at 78 (emphases added). 9
Lore's evidence of her pain, suffering, and emotional distress, summarized in Part I.C. 10
above, included her own testimony and the testimony of her mother, that Lore had suffered, inter alia, 11
tension headaches, abdominal pain, insomnia, anxiety, and depression. They testified that whereas 12
Lore had been a gregarious and vivacious person before the events of 2000 and 2001, she thereafter 13
suffered from stress, had stomach problems, and became reclusive. (See, e.g., Tr. 189-93, 568-69.) 14
Her mother testified that Lore looked like a ghost (see id. at 568), "wouldn't talk" to anyone, and 15
"cried and cried and cried" (id. at 569). In addition, Lore received medical treatment, the physical 16
side effects of which included vomiting and diarrhea. Her medical records showed, inter alia, that her 17
physician insisted that she remain out of work for a period in June 2001 to receive treatment for her 18
depression (see PX ZZ). This evidence is qualitatively similar to that presented in Meacham, in which 19
we approved emotional distress awards of $125,000 to $175,000. 20
Yet there are two significant differences between Lore's case and Meacham. First, 21
Lore's emotional distress evidence related in part to a period that preceded any of the retaliatory acts 22
the jury found the City--or any of its employees--to have performed. Although the evidence was that 23
Lore's emotional and physical distress lasted at least until the summer of 2001, it also showed clearly 24
that that distress had begun in January or February 2000, when Lore, inter alia, was ordered to wear 25
a uniform to work--the only officer in that unit not allowed to dress in plainclothes--and lost a 26

-- 70 of 78 --

71
requested CRD position to a more junior officer. Thus, as the case was submitted to the jury, the 1
City's earliest retaliatory act was found to have been committed in September 2000--more than half 2
a year after Lore first experienced the distress for which she sought professional treatment. In 3
September 2000 and thereafter, the jury found, the City--if the acts of Guy are ignored--retaliated 4
against Lore for filing her complaints of discrimination only by threatening her with criminal 5
prosecution unless she withdrew the discrimination complaints, suspending her without pay for 10 6
days after she refused to do so, and attempting to have her prosecuted. 7
Second, in Meacham, the plaintiffs had lost their jobs. In the present case, Lore did 8
not lose her job, did not lose her rank, and did not lose her salary or fringe benefits, except to the 9
extent of her 10-day suspension. One would not reasonably expect emotional distress on the part of 10
Lore--resulting from (a) the threat of prosecution if she did not withdraw her complaints of 11
discrimination and (b) the 10-day suspension--to be on a par with the emotional distress suffered by 12
a person who was discriminatorily fired. Further, although the City made actual attempts to have the 13
district attorney prosecute Lore, those attempts could not be found to have caused reputational injury 14
or significant emotional distress as there was no evidence that they were publicized, and they 15
apparently were not known even to Lore herself until she brought the present lawsuit (see Tr. 198-99). 16
Were it not for the publicity including the negative comments by Guy, we would conclude that the 17
district court should have ordered a remittitur. 18
Sufficient evidence to support the jury's awards against the City of $100,000 for 19
reputational injury and $150,000 for emotional distress, however, is found in the publicity in which 20
Guy participated, making Lore's suspension public and casting it in a way that allowed the jury to 21
infer that members of the public were left with the false impression that Lore had stolen other officers' 22

-- 71 of 78 --

72
paychecks. The jury had been instructed that if it found that any of the individual defendants had 1
unlawfully retaliated against Lore, the City would be liable. Although separate questions were posed 2
with respect to the conduct of Guy and the conduct of unidentified or nonparty City officials who 3
threatened Lore with prosecution and ordered her suspension, we are unable to conclude that the 4
verdict of $250,000 against the City is not excessive unless we infer that the jury considered the 5
evidence as a whole and gave that award in recognition of the City's threat and suspension not in 6
isolation but in connection with the damaging publicity thereafter promoted by the City's corporation 7
counsel, motivated by retaliatory intent. 8
In sum, the jury was properly instructed that, if it found Lore to have proven all of the 9
elements of her retaliation claims against any defendant (see Tr. 1236), it should award her such 10
damages as it found to be "adequate," "fair, just, and reasonable" for the emotional distress it found 11
she suffered "as a direct result of the incident in question" (id. at 1237 (emphasis added)). And it was 12
instructed that Lore "has the burden to prove that her injuries would not have occurred without 13
defendants' retaliatory conduct." (Tr. 1232.) Given all the evidence, including the damaging publicity 14
generated by Guy' retaliatory conduct and the evidence that Lore seemed near a nervous breakdown 15
(see Tr. 567-68) and deep into June of 2001 was still being treated for depression, it was within the 16
jury's prerogative to find that although Lore suffered emotional distress prior to September 2000, her 17
distress was perpetuated and/or exacerbated by the City's retaliatory conduct in September 2000 and 18
massively so by the suspension-generated publicity in November 2000 falsely indicating that Lore, 19
a police officer, had stolen other officers' paychecks. Although the amount of the $250,000 award 20
with respect to the retaliatory events of September-November 2000 strikes us as generous, we cannot 21
conclude that the district court's refusal to order a remittitur, given its finding that the award was 22

-- 72 of 78 --

73
justified by the evidence, "was fair and reasonable, and did not shock the conscience," Lore III, 2009 1
WL 2473508, at *2, constituted an abuse of discretion. 2
By the same token, since we are able to reach that conclusion only by considering the 3
jury's findings as to the conduct of Guy, we cannot conclude that the fact that Guy was not entitled 4
to qualified immunity for his HRL violation entitles Lore to the doubling of a verdict we already 5
consider to be generous. Lore is, however, entitled, for the reasons set out in Part III.A. above, to 6
have the present judgment--assuming that she does not opt for a retrial, see also Part V below-- 7
amended to reflect that she prevailed on her HRL claim against Guy. We leave it to the district court 8
to fashion a conditional order of remittitur that gives Lore the option of accepting a total award of 9
compensatory damages, on her Title VII and HRL claims against the City and her HRL claim against 10
Guy, that is no higher than "the maximum amount that would be upheld by the district court as not 11
excessive," Earl v. Bouchard Transportation Co., 917 F.2d 1320, 1330 (2d Cir. 1990), or having a new 12
trial on both sets of claims. 13
14
V. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT AND ON REMAND 15
16
For the reasons stated in Part III.B. above, the district court erred in granting summary 17
judgment dismissing Lore's HRL claims of gender discrimination against Bernardi and the City based 18
on her removal from the PIO position. Lore was entitled to have her trial encompass those claims. 19
For the reasons stated in Part II above, we have been unpersuaded by the City's arguments that there 20
was reversible error in the judgment granted against it on Lore's HRL and Title VII claims of 21
retaliation. If the issues with respect to Lore's claims of retaliation and her claims of discrimination 22

-- 73 of 78 --

74
were clearly separable and had been treated more discretely at trial, we would simply remand for trial 1
of those discrimination claims, for it would ordinarily be possible to have a trial of claims of 2
discrimination without bringing in the fact that the complaints of discrimination led to acts of 3
retaliation. See generally Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494, 500-01 4
(1931) (reversing order for a retrial limited to damages where some relevant factors leading to the 5
jury's verdict on liability were unclear); id. at 500 ("Where the practice permits a partial new trial, it 6
may not properly be resorted to unless it clearly appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and 7
separable from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice."); Crane v. Consolidated 8
Rail Corp., 731 F.2d 1042, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1984) (new trial warranted only on issue of contributory 9
negligence and not on damages where a "'misconception of the law and the evidence'" with respect 10
to the former did not affect the jury's determination of the latter issue). 11
However, it is indisputable here that there was considerable discussion at trial as to 12
Lore's complaints of discrimination, in part necessitated by the fact that the acts of retaliation were 13
alleged to have been motivated by Lore's complaints of discrimination. For example, as background 14
for her allegations of retaliation, Lore was allowed to testify to her appointment in 1996 as public 15
information officer for the Department, serving as SPD's liaison with the media, working directly for 16
the chief of police, and having an office of her own in the chief's office (e.g., Tr. 95-96). She testified 17
to being removed as PIO and filing grievances thereafter, alleging gender discrimination. But the 18
testimony and arguments went well beyond the mere fact that Lore had filed complaints of 19
discrimination. Lore also testified to the differences between her duties as PIO and her duties after 20
reassignment, for example, being reassigned to the Department's technical operations section, in 21
which her duties were to "overs[ee] telephones, cell phones, pagers, portable radio[s]" and other 22

-- 74 of 78 --

75
communication devices. (Id. at 98.) She testified that she was replaced in the PIO position by a male, 1
and said, "To get denied because I am a woman, dead wrong" (id. at 101). 2
Defendants, for their part, argued not only that there was no retaliation, but also that 3
Lore had not been the victim of discrimination. (See, e.g., Tr. 80 ("You will never hear that Sergeant 4
Lore suffered demotions . . . ."); id. at 1136 ("I think . . . you will conclude at the end of this case that 5
there were no acts of discrimination . . . .").) 6
As indicated in Part IV above, although we do not conclude that the district court 7
abused its discretion in rejecting the City's contention that the jury's award of $250,000 in 8
compensatory damages was excessive, that award for reputational injury and emotional distress 9
caused by the retaliatory acts the jury found to have occurred in September, November, and December 10
of 2000 strikes us as large. And it is entirely possible that the jury, while heeding the court's 11
instructions not to concern itself with the merits of Lore's discrimination claims, was influenced in 12
the direction of generosity by the evidence as to Lore's underlying claims of gender discrimination 13
with respect to her removal from the prestigious PIO position and her transfer to positions involving 14
supervision of cell phones and patrol cars. 15
Thus, it is not clear to us that a trial limited to Lore's claims of discrimination based 16
on her removal from the PIO position might not result in an award that in part overlaps the generous 17
$250,000 verdict already returned by the jury on her claims of retaliation. Accordingly, to prevent 18
the injustice of a duplicative award, we conclude that if Lore's discrimination claims against Bernardi 19
and the City are to be tried, there should also be a retrial of her retaliation claims against the City and 20
Guy (the latter claims themselves being intertwined as discussed in Part IV above), so that a single 21
jury may consider the circumstances of all of those claims and render a verdict that appropriately 22
compensates Lore with respect to all of the claims it finds proven. 23

-- 75 of 78 --

76
Nonetheless, since we have found no reversible error in the judgment against the City, 1
and since Lore may wish to forgo a trial on her discrimination claims against Bernardi and the City 2
in order to retain the damages, attorneys' fees, and costs awarded in the present judgment, we will 3
make our order for a new trial conditional: We will give Lore the option of either having the present 4
judgment in her favor vacated and having a new trial encompassing both the discrimination claims 5
against Bernardi and the City and the retaliation claims against the City and Guy, or forgoing a trial 6
of those discrimination claims and retaining the benefits of the present judgment. 7
If Lore elects to proceed to trial, the judgment awarding her damages, attorneys' fees, 8
and costs will be vacated. Her eventual entitlement to those monetary awards will depend on the 9
outcome of the new trial. See generally Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 756-58 (1980) (a § 1983 10
plaintiff who has won only an interim battle that may in the end be meaningless is not a prevailing 11
party entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988); id. at 758-59 (reversing award of attorneys' 12
fees to plaintiffs for success on appeal from the granting of a directed verdict against them, thereby 13
entitling them to a retrial, stating that if plaintiffs lost at trial "it could not seriously be contended that 14
[they] had prevailed"); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 n.7 (1983) (same standards are 15
"generally applicable in all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a 'prevailing 16
party'"); Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 102 F.3d 56, 58 n.1 (2d Cir. 1996) (§ 1988 cases are 17
authoritative in Title VII attorneys' fees context), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1274 (1997). That vacatur 18
will become effective if Lore elects to proceed to trial as indicated above. 19
If Lore elects to forgo trial on the discrimination claims, the judgment of the district 20
court will be affirmed except to the extent that it dismissed Lore's HRL claims for retaliation against 21
Guy; that part of the order will be vacated, and the matter will be remanded for entry of a conditional 22

-- 76 of 78 --

77
order of remittitur consistent with Part IV above. If Lore accepts the remittitur, she will be entitled, 1
in addition to the fees and costs awarded in the present judgment, to an award of reasonable attorneys' 2
fees for her opposition to the City's present appeal, although not for her cross-appeal, see generally 3
Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 913-14 (2d Cir. 1997) (a plaintiff whose federal civil 4
rights claim was properly dismissed and who prevailed only under a state statute, such as the HRL, 5
that does not authorize an award of attorneys' fees is not entitled to an award of fees, even if the 6
claims are intertwined, because she is not a prevailing party on the federal civil rights claim). If Lore 7
opts instead for retrial of her retaliation claims against the City and Guy, her entitlement to attorneys' 8
fees with respect to the present appeal will abide the outcome of her new trial and the ultimate 9
determination of whether she is a prevailing party. 10
CONCLUSION 11
We have considered all of the parties' contentions in support of their respective 12
positions on appeal, to the extent that they are properly before us, and have found them to be without 13
merit except as indicated above. Our judgment on these appeals is as follows: 14
(A) We unconditionally affirm so much of the judgment as (1) dismissed all 15
of Lore's claims against the individual defendants, except her HRL discrimination 16
claim based on her removal from the PIO position ("HRL removal claim") against 17
Bernardi and her HRL retaliation claim against Guy; (2) dismissed Lore's Title VII 18
claims against the City for acts prior to September 19, 1999; and (3) dismissed all 19
other claims against the City, except Lore's HRL removal claim and her Title VII and 20
HRL retaliation claims. 21
(B) We unconditionally vacate so much of the judgment as dismissed Lore's 22
retaliation claim against Guy under the HRL, and we remand either for retrial of that 23
claim with others specified in paragraph (C) or (D), or for a remittitur, depending on 24
the option chosen by Lore. 25

-- 77 of 78 --

78
(C) We conditionally vacate so much of the judgment as (1) dismissed Lore's 1
HRL removal claims against Bernardi and the City, and (2) awarded Lore damages, 2
costs, and attorneys' fees against the City on her Title VII and HRL claims of 3
retaliation; and we give Lore the opportunity to avoid the vacatur by withdrawing so 4
much of her appeal as challenges the summary dismissal of her HRL removal claims 5
within 21 days of the filing of this opinion. If Lore does not withdraw that portion of 6
her appeal within that time, the parts of the judgment specified in this paragraph will 7
be vacated and the matter will be remanded to the district court for trial of Lore's HRL 8
removal claims against Bernardi and the City together with retrial of her retaliation 9
claims against the City under Title VII and the HRL and her retaliation claim against 10
Guy under the HRL. 11
(D) In the event that Lore withdraws her appeal from the dismissal of her HRL 12
removal claims against Bernardi and the City within the time specified in paragraph 13
(C) above, the judgment will--in addition to the unconditional affirmances set forth in 14
paragraph (A) above and the unconditional vacatur set forth in paragraph (B) above-- 15
be affirmed insofar as it dismissed Lore's HRL removal claims against Bernardi and 16
the City, and the matter will be remanded to the district court for the entry of a 17
conditional order of remittitur with respect to Lore's HRL retaliation claim against 18
Guy, as set forth in Part IV above. 19
(E) We conditionally affirm so much of the judgment as awarded costs and 20
attorneys' fees to Lore as a prevailing party in this litigation. This affirmance will 21
become final if Lore (a) opts to withdraw her appeal from the dismissal of her HRL 22
removal claims against Bernardi and the City within the time specified in paragraph 23
(C) above, and (b) opts to accept the remittitur conditionally ordered by the district 24
court on remand, by such deadline as that court shall set. If Lore chooses both of these 25
options, she will also be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees with respect to the 26
present appeal by the City, the amount to be determined by the district court. In the 27
event that Lore rejects either or both of these options, her right to any attorneys' fees 28
will not be known until the outcome of the new trial, including any posttrial 29
proceedings and appeals, determines whether she is a prevailing party. 30
Defendant City of Syracuse shall pay plaintiff the normal costs on its appeal; on the 31
cross-appeal, each side shall bear its own costs. 32

-- 78 of 78 --