May v. Chrysler Group, LLC

In 1988, Otto May (plaintiff), a Jewish Cuban immigrant, began working at a plant belonging to Chrysler Group, LLC (Chrysler) (defendant). Beginning in 2002, May was repeatedly anonymously harassed at the plant through anti-Semitic, racist, and homophobic graffiti, notes, and phone calls. The harassment also included damage to May’s car and death threats. May told his supervisor, labor relations, security, police, and Chrysler headquarters about the harassment. Chrysler held a meeting to review its harassment policy for 60 of the more than 1,000 plant employees who had access to the graffitied areas. Chrysler requested that May provide a list of possible suspects, but Chrysler did not interview anyone on that list. Chrysler failed to honor May’s requests to install security cameras or an electronic-access door system to locate possible suspects. Chrysler implemented a protocol for handling May’s harassment that involved simply documenting the harassment and cleaning graffiti. In 2003, Chrysler hired a forensic-document examiner to analyze the notes’ handwriting, but after four years, the examiner’s report was inconclusive. At trial, Chrysler expressed some empathy for May’s harassment, but Chrysler also repeatedly implied that May himself could have authored the harassing messages. After a seven-day jury trial, the jury awarded May $709,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages, but the compensatory damages were capped at $300,000 pursuant to a statute. The district court then granted Chrysler’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in part, finding that Chrysler was liable for May’s harassment but that the jury should not have awarded May punitive damages; the district court awarded a new trial. Both May and Chrysler appealed.