Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Contrice Travis v. Exel Inc., dba DHL Supply Chain (USA), et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 14-11007 · judgment March 16, 2018
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and an Eleventh Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against covered employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a governs the award of damages—both compensatory and punitive—in actions brought pursuant to Title VII. Since the enactment of those Acts, a circuit split has developed regarding the circumstances under which a discriminating manager’s actions may be imputed to the company at large for purposes of awarding punitive damages. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the trial court’s vacatur of punitive damages awarded under §1981a, holding that the discriminating manager’s actions could not be imputed to the company at large because the manager was not part of “higher management”. In contrast, had this matter arisen in nearly any other Circuit, it likely would have been decided differently under the “managerial capacity” standard articulated by this Court in Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n. 527 U.S. 526 (1999). Accordingly, this case presents the important issue of resolving the Circuits’ divergent standards for imputing to a company the discriminatory conduct of its managers. Therefore, the specific question presented is: Whether the proper test for imputing a manager’s discriminatory conduct is the “higher management” standard advanced by the Eleventh Circuit in Dudley v. Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc., 166 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 1999), or the “managerial capacity” standard advanced by this Court in Kolstad .
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Rudjard Melvin Hayes
Sanchez Hayes & Associates, LLC
For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Mar 25 2019Petition DENIED.
- Mar 06 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
- Mar 06 2019Reply of Contrice Travis not accepted for filing. (March 06, 2019) (Corrected electronic filing submitted)
- Mar 06 2019Reply of petitioner Contrice Travis filed. (Distributed)(3/6/2019)
- Mar 05 2019Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
- Feb 22 2019Brief of respondent Federal Respondent in opposition filed.
- Jan 18 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 25, 2019.
- Jan 17 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 25, 2019 to February 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 14 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 26, 2018 to January 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 14 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 25, 2019.
- Dec 03 2018Brief of respondent Exel Inc. in opposition filed.
- Nov 21 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 26, 2018.
- Nov 20 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 23, 2018 to December 26, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 30 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 5, 2018.
- Oct 26 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 23, 2018 to December 5, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 04 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 23, 2018)