Sex discrimination & retaliation under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) & Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; Whether the verdict form was a “general” form or a “special verdict” form; FedRCivP 49(b)(3); Reconciled verdict; Rule 49(a); Affirmative defense to the discrimination claim; Budget constraints; Supply & demand

The court held that the verdict forms in this employment discrimination/retaliation case were general and not special, and “despite classifying these verdicts differently than the magistrate judge did,” it affirmed the judgment for defendant-county school board. Plaintiff-Debity sued defendant for sex discrimination and retaliation under the EPA and Title VII, claiming that it offered her a lower salary than the male who previously held the job, and when she asked for more, it retaliated by withdrawing the job offer. The jury found that defendant had legitimate reasons for offering Debity less and that it had not retaliated against her. Despite the verdicts, the jury awarded her a little over $195,000. This apparently resulted from a confusing verdict form. The magistrate judge “held that all the questions on the verdict form were special verdicts” and reconciled the verdicts under Rule 49(a) by throwing out the damages award and finding for defendant on all claims. On appeal, the court first considered what kind of verdicts the jury returned. Although the magistrate judge classified them as special verdicts, the court disagreed, concluding that the jury received a general verdict form on the retaliation claims and a general verdict with interrogatories on the discrimination claims. It further held that “the interrogatories for the discrimination claims are inconsistent with the general verdict, but not with each other.” It found that as a result, the discrimination claims fell under Rule 49(b)(3), and that there was no need to remand the case where it was “clear that the magistrate judge would enter judgment based on the answers to Questions 1(a) and 1(b) notwithstanding the general verdict as reflected in Question 3.” And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permitted “the magistrate judge’s chosen course (entering judgment based on the interrogatories) under the correct classification[.]” As to the retaliation claim, the court determined that Question 3 and Question 2(a) formed a general verdict that was a consistent one in defendant’s favor. Further, the court upheld the magistrate judge’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to whether defendant made a successful affirmative defense to the discrimination claims, concluding “that two reasons in this case—(1) budget constraints and (2) market forces of supply and demand—each provide an independent basis to uphold the jury’s verdict.”