## Facts

- Mary Jane Kerr Selgas, an American Airlines employee for about eighteen years and an account executive in cargo sales, sued American Airlines, Inc. and her supervisor, Whadzen Carrasquillo, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- Selgas asserted sex discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and related claims under Puerto Rico law (including Puerto Rico’s anti-discrimination statute providing double damages and Puerto Rico’s unjust-dismissal statute, Law 80).
- After a three-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for Selgas and awarded $1,000,000 in compensatory damages (subject to mandatory doubling under Puerto Rico law), $350,000 in Title VII punitive damages, and $20,000 under Law 80 (totaling $2.37 million as initially computed).
- The jury’s answers on the special verdict form appeared inconsistent: it found for Selgas on sex discrimination and retaliation, yet also answered that American had “valid reasons” for terminating Selgas.
- Before the jury was discharged, the court consulted counsel. With express agreement from both sides, the court submitted a short supplemental question in general-verdict form asking which party the jury intended to prevail on the sex discrimination claim and the retaliation claim.
- The jury responded in writing that it intended to find in favor of Selgas on both claims.
- Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) and, alternatively, for a new trial and other relief, arguing (among other things) that the original special verdict was consistent and required judgment for defendants, and that the supplemental question improperly converted a special verdict into a general verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the special verdict answers were irreconcilably inconsistent (or ambiguous), and whether the court could seek clarification by submitting a supplemental question to the jury before discharge without violating Rule 49 or the Seventh Amendment.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Selgas’s sex discrimination and retaliation claims.
3. Whether a new trial or reduction of the verdict was required based on the alleged inconsistency, evidentiary insufficiency, or the size/structure of the damages (including punitive damages and Puerto Rico’s statutory doubling), and whether Law 80 severance could be awarded in addition to larger statutory remedies.

## Decision

- The court ruled that the special verdict answers, read together with the damages findings, were facially inconsistent or ambiguous as to liability, and the court acted properly in seeking clarification from the jury before discharge.
- The court held that using a brief supplemental question to confirm the jury’s intended winners on the discrimination and retaliation claims did not improperly “transform” the verdict in a way barred by Rule 49 or the Seventh Amendment, particularly given counsel’s express agreement to the procedure.
- The court denied defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find for Selgas on sex discrimination and retaliation as clarified by the jury’s supplemental answers.
- The court declined to set aside the punitive damages and declined to order a new trial based on the clarified verdict.
- The court applied Puerto Rico law requiring doubling of compensatory damages on the successful local discrimination claim and limited Law 80 recovery where other awarded remedies exceeded the Law 80 amount.

## Legal Principles

- When special-verdict answers appear inconsistent, a court must attempt to reconcile them if reasonably possible; if reconciliation is not possible, the court may resubmit questions to the jury for clarification before the jury is discharged. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 49; see also Gallick v. B. & O. R.R. Co.)
- A supplemental question that asks the jury to clarify its intended finding on liability can be a permissible way to resolve ambiguity in special-verdict answers, and it does not necessarily convert the verdict into an impermissible general verdict.
- A party that expressly agrees on the record to a clarification procedure faces a strong waiver/forfeiture problem when later attacking that same procedure after an unfavorable clarification.
- Judgment as a matter of law is improper if, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, a reasonable jury could find liability; credibility choices and weighing competing proof are for the jury.
- Under Puerto Rico’s anti-discrimination statute, compensatory damages on a successful claim are doubled as a matter of law.
- Law 80 severance is not owed where the employee receives a greater monetary remedy under other statutes for the same discharge (so a Law 80 amount may be eliminated or treated as noncumulative when larger awards are granted).

## Conclusion

Selgas held that the district court could, before discharging the jury and with counsel’s express agreement, submit a short supplemental question to clarify an apparent inconsistency in special-verdict answers about discrimination and retaliation, and the clarified answers controlled. The court denied defendants’ Rule 50 and new-trial efforts because the evidence supported the verdict as clarified, sustained the punitive and doubled compensatory structure required by Puerto Rico law, and limited Law 80 recovery in light of larger statutory remedies.


Selgas v. American Airlines, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 316 (1994)