Plaintiffs Colleen Stuart and Jana Harden sued defendant City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII for failure to promote them to the position of Major in the Topeka Police Department. The City filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court also addressed the appropriate calculations for back pay and front pay following the jury’s advisory verdict on those issues.

Factual Overview

In 2021, Chief Bryan Wheeles of the Topeka Police Department selected Michael Cross, a male officer, for promotion to the position of Major instead of either Plaintiff Stuart or Plaintiff Harden. The plaintiffs sued the City of Topeka, alleging that they were passed over for promotion because of their gender in violation of Title VII. After a four-day trial, a unanimous jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the City had discriminated against them based on gender. The jury awarded each plaintiff $200,000 in compensatory damages and provided an advisory verdict suggesting back pay of $35,277.58 and front pay of $42,593.67 for Stuart, and $11,059.20 in back pay but no front pay for Harden. Following the verdict, the City filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial, as well as a post-trial brief regarding the calculation of front pay and back pay.

Legal Analysis

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

The City first argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiffs failed to establish that the City’s stated reasons for not promoting them were pretextual. The Court rejected this argument, explaining that while pretext analysis is part of the McDonnell Douglas framework used at the summary judgment stage, that framework “disappears” after a plaintiff survives summary judgment. At trial, the ultimate question was whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiffs, which the jury found to be the case.

The Court noted that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a jury to conclude that the City intentionally discriminated against the plaintiffs. This evidence included testimony that Cross was described as “unpromotable” and “untrustworthy” by a member of the interview panel, and had known performance issues. Additionally, both plaintiffs had objectively superior qualifications compared to Cross, including longer tenure, more time at the rank of Captain, more experience across different divisions, and more formal education.

Evidentiary Rulings

The City also argued that certain evidence was erroneously admitted at trial. The Court rejected this argument on several grounds. First, the Court explained that anecdotal evidence supporting a discrimination claim need not be sufficient to establish an actionable claim of discrimination to be admissible. “Me too” evidence from other female employees was properly admitted because it related to Wheeles’s intent to discriminate based on gender during the relevant time frame.

The Court also noted that many of the City’s objections to testimony were either not made at trial or were sustained when raised. The City therefore could not complain about evidence to which it did not object, nor about testimony that was excluded when objections were made.

Front Pay and Back Pay Awards

The City sought to limit the plaintiffs’ front pay and back pay awards, arguing that since there was only one open Major position in 2021, both plaintiffs could not recover equitable relief as if each would have been promoted. The Court agreed, holding that awarding front pay and back pay to both plaintiffs would place them in a better position than they would have been in absent discrimination and would result in a windfall.

The Court determined that Harden was more likely than Stuart to have been promoted to Major in 2021 based on interview performance (all three community panelists scored Harden as “promotable” while two concluded Stuart was “not ready”), and the fact that Harden was later promoted to Major in 2023 while Stuart remained a Captain. Therefore, only Harden was entitled to equitable relief.

The Court awarded Harden $11,059.20 in back pay, representing her lost wages and benefits for the fifteen months between the discriminatory failure to promote in 2021 and her eventual promotion in 2023. The Court denied front pay for Harden since she had already been promoted to Major before trial and did not present evidence showing any ongoing difference in compensation.

The Court denied the City’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial, awarded each plaintiff $200,000 in compensatory damages, awarded Harden $11,029.00 in back pay but no front pay, and denied Stuart any front pay or back pay.