## Facts

- Dawn Georgette Myers worked for Central Florida Investments, Inc. (CFI) and related entities; David Siegel was CFI’s chairman, president, CEO, and sole shareholder.
- During a business trip to Las Vegas, Myers accompanied Siegel to his hotel suite.
- Myers testified that Siegel directed her to rub lotion on his back, took her hand to place it on his back, then grabbed her and pulled her onto a bed.
- Myers testified Siegel kissed her and touched her breasts and buttocks under her clothing; she resisted and told him to stop.
- Myers later claimed emotional and related harms and brought federal/state civil-rights harassment claims and a Florida common-law battery claim based on the incident.
- After a jury trial, the jury rejected the sexual-harassment/hostile-environment claims but found for Myers on battery and awarded $103,622.09 in compensatory damages and $506,847.75 in punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under Florida law to support the jury’s finding of battery and an award of compensatory damages.
2. Whether the evidence supported punitive damages for battery under Florida standards for intentional misconduct or gross negligence.
3. Whether the punitive award complied with Florida’s punitive-damages statute (including any cap and financial-condition considerations).
4. Whether the punitive award was unconstitutional as “grossly excessive” under federal due process.
5. Whether the district court erred in limiting evidence offered to support punitive damages and in denying Myers attorney’s fees and other requested relief after she lost on the civil-rights claims.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full.
- The court held the evidence permitted the jury to find an unwanted, offensive touching constituting battery and to award compensatory damages.
- The court upheld the availability of punitive damages based on the intentional and egregious nature of the conduct and the workplace power imbalance.
- The court concluded the punitive amount, as constrained under Florida law, was not excessive under due process guideposts.
- The court found no reversible error in evidentiary limits on other-misconduct proof, in the application of Florida’s punitive-damages framework, or in denying attorney’s fees and other relief tied to civil-rights claims Myers did not win.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida law, battery may be shown by intentional, harmful, or offensive touching; appellate courts generally do not reweigh credibility determinations supporting a jury verdict.
- Florida punitive damages require proof of intentional misconduct or gross negligence; punitive damages serve punishment and deterrence and may consider the defendant’s financial condition within evidentiary limits.
- Punitive damages are constrained by Florida’s statutory scheme, including any applicable caps and procedures.
- Federal due process limits punitive damages that are “grossly excessive,” evaluated by factors including reprehensibility, the punitive-to-compensatory relationship, and comparison to penalties for similar misconduct.
- Attorney’s fees under Title VII and similar fee-shifting statutes generally require prevailing-party status on those statutory claims.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit left intact a jury’s Florida battery verdict and compensatory and punitive damages award arising from an executive’s unwanted sexual touching on a business trip, holding that the evidence supported liability and damages and that the district court correctly applied Florida punitive-damages limits, evidentiary controls, and due process standards while properly denying fees and additional relief after the plaintiff lost on her civil-rights claims.


Myers v. Cent. Fla. Invs., Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2010)