## Facts

- Jennifer L. Passantino worked for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (CPI) from 1979 and became a successful manager in a male-dominated division.
- Passantino alleged she was denied advancement because of her sex and complained internally in 1993 about discriminatory promotion practices.
- After complaining, CPI took actions the jury could view as retaliatory, including removing responsibilities and accounts, excluding her from managers’ meetings, and downgrading her promotability status.
- Passantino made a formal internal complaint in 1994 and filed an EEOC charge in 1995; she asserted retaliation intensified after these steps.
- She sued under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for sex discrimination and retaliation.
- A jury found for CPI on the sex discrimination claims but for Passantino on the retaliation claims under both Title VII and WLAD.
- The jury awarded $100,000 back pay, $2,000,000 front pay, $1,000,000 for emotional and physical pain and suffering, and $8,600,000 punitive damages (punitive damages tied to the federal claim).
- The district court reduced punitive damages to $300,000 under Title VII’s statutory cap and allocated compensatory items to the state-law claim to avoid applying the federal cap to those damages.

## Issues

1. Whether venue was proper in the Western District of Washington under Title VII’s special venue provision.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that CPI retaliated against Passantino for protected activity.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting a taped interview and related materials.
4. Whether alleged errors in jury instructions on mitigation and present value required reversal or a new trial.
5. Whether the district court permissibly allocated back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages to WLAD while allocating punitive damages to Title VII, avoiding double recovery and respecting Title VII’s damages cap.
6. Whether punitive damages under Title VII had to be retried under the standards clarified in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment on liability for retaliation under Title VII and WLAD.
- The court held venue was proper because Passantino worked in the district and experienced the effects of the alleged unlawful employment practices there.
- The court found sufficient evidence of retaliation, including timing and adverse employment actions following protected complaints.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting the taped interview or in the jury instructions.
- The court affirmed the district court’s allocation of back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages to WLAD and punitive damages to Title VII, so long as there was no double recovery.
- The court vacated the punitive damages award and remanded for further proceedings limited to punitive damages under Kolstad.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII’s venue provision, venue may lie where the plaintiff works and where the effects of the alleged unlawful employment practice are felt, even if some decisionmaking occurred elsewhere.
- Retaliation may be proven with evidence that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, suffered adverse employment actions, and that a causal link can be inferred from timing, patterns of treatment, and related evidence.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; evidence may be admitted when probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly with limiting instructions.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; reversal is warranted only if the instructions misstate the law or mislead the jury.
- When overlapping federal and state theories support recovery for the same injury, a court may allocate damages to comply with statutory limits and avoid double recovery, including assigning compensatory items to an uncapped state claim while assigning punitive damages to a capped federal claim.
- Title VII punitive damages require proof of malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights, and employer vicarious liability is limited where the employer shows good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII (Kolstad).

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the retaliation verdict and the compensatory and equitable damages, approved the district court’s allocation of damages between WLAD and Title VII to respect the federal cap without duplicative recovery, and remanded only the punitive damages issue for reconsideration under Kolstad.


Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000)