City of Hollywood v. Hogan
986 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Police officers sued the city of Hollywood, alleging age discrimination and retaliation in violation of § 760.10(1)(a), Fla. Stat., of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. A jury found for the officers on both claims. The trial court, however, entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the retaliation claims and denied the city's motion for remittitur. Both sides appealed. The officers presented evidence that of nine persons qualified for promotion, only they--the two oldest--were not promoted, even though they scored higher on the qualifying list than at least four other candidates. The appellate court held this evidence was adequate to create an inference the employment decision was based on an illegal discriminatory criterion. In view of other evidence of discriminatory intent, the officers had to prove only that younger persons were promoted over them. Though the city's rebuttal evidence removed the presumption of discrimination, substantial other evidence supported the officers' claim that the determinative factor in the promotion decisions was their age, including evidence that their superiors thought they were "too old" to be promoted. Granting the city a JNOV on the retaliation claims was error, as the city did not move for directed verdicts on these claims at trial, and there was sufficient evidence to withstand such motions . As there was scant evidence of emotional injury, awards of $ 1.1 million to each officer for non-economic damages were grossly excessive; the city's motion for remittitur should have been granted under § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat.