Del. Judge Wipes Out $1.5M Verdict, Orders New Trial in Breastfeeding Discrimination Case
A Delaware federal judge has ordered a new trial in the case of a woman who was awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages for claims that she had been demoted for using a breast pump at work.
June 04, 2019 at 05:29 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A Delaware federal judge has ordered a new trial in the case of a woman who was awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages for claims that she had been demoted for using a breast pump at work.
U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware blamed attorneys for plaintiff Autumn Lampkins for conflating separate claims of disparate treatment and hostile work environment in a way that “undoubtedly confused the jury.” Attorneys for defendant Mitra QSR KNE, which operates Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in Delaware, had contributed to the confusion by largely going along with the gambit until it was too late, he said.
The result, Connolly ruled, was an unreasonable finding in February by a Wilmington jury, which ruled in favor of Lampkins on all six counts of her discrimination suit and awarded her $1.5 million in punitive damages, plus another $25,000 in compensatory damages.
“Having concluded that the jury's findings in favor of Lampkins' hostile work environment claims were unreasonable and should be overturned, I believe that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the jury's disparate treatment findings to stand, as I think the jury was confused by the various and conflated theories of liability presented both explicitly and implicitly by Lampkins at trial,” Connolly wrote in a 38-page memorandum opinion.
According to the opinion, Lampkins had recently given birth when she was hired as an assistant manager making $10.50 per hour at a dual brand KFC and Taco Bell restaurant in Camden.
Lampkins cited 14 instances of ”severe or pervasive discriminatory harassment” she allegedly suffered because she had been lactating, including management complaints and two separate instances of male employees walking in on her while she was pumping in an office. In one instance, she said, a male worker “peeped” into the room and made “squeezing hand gestures” in a joke to other staff members.
Employees complained about frequent breaks Lampkins took for pumping, and some even threatened to quit, court papers said. Lampkins was demoted to shift manager at a Dover location and her pay was cut from $10.50 to $10 per hour.
But Connolly ruled Tuesday that all of those instances, viewed in their totality, could not sustain the jury's finding that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment. In his opinion, Connolly said that none of the cited behavior involved derogatory statements or were threatening, hostile or abusive in nature.
“Viewed in the light most favorable to Lampkins, the circumstances identified by Lampkins establish that she had an unpleasant relationship with her coworkers, and that her coworkers resented her for taking so many breaks to pump,” Connolly wrote.
At trial, Connolly said, Lampkins' Jacobs & Crumplar attorneys placed too much emphasis on the breast-pumping accommodations available there, making it the dispositive issue for the jury. However, that Title VII, which Lampkins cited as the basis for her hostile work environment claims, was “not an accommodations statute,” and could not be used to reach a remedy, he said.
Attorneys for both sides did not return calls Tuesday afternoon seeking comment on the ruling.
Lampkins is represented by Patrick C. Gallagher and Raeann Warner of Jacobs & Crumplar in Wilmington.
Mitra is represented by Jo Bennett and Samantha Banks of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis in Philadelphia and Richard A. Barkasy and Daniel M. Pereira from the firm's Wilmington office.
The case is captioned Lampkins v. Mitra.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSuit Over Citric Acid in Kraft Mac & Cheese Survives Challenge
Walmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
3 minute readJudge Dismisses Microplastics Suit Against Evian's 'Natural Spring Water'
5 minute readKraft Heinz Hires GC of Industrial Manufacturer as Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250