## Facts

- Brad J. Turyna worked for Martam Construction Co., Inc. as a truck driver from January 1986 until his termination on September 26, 1989.
- Turyna sued Martam (and two corporate officers) alleging (1) unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and (2) retaliatory discharge under the FLSA and Illinois public policy.
- A supplemental oral-contract claim was removed from the case by judgment as a matter of law; the FLSA overtime and retaliatory-discharge claims were tried to a jury.
- The jury received a verdict form that required (a) liability selections for each count and (b) completion of a separate “Damages” page if the jury found for Turyna on any claim.
- The jury found for Turyna on the FLSA overtime claim and found for defendants on the retaliatory-discharge count as to liability.
- Despite the defense finding on retaliatory discharge, the jury also entered an award of punitive damages “under Count II” (retaliatory discharge) against Martam.
- Counsel were not present when the verdict was returned; judgment was entered awarding overtime-related amounts and the punitive-damages amount on Count II.
- Martam moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to amend the judgment by vacating the punitive-damages award as inconsistent with the no-liability finding; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a verdict finding for defendants on a retaliatory-discharge claim but awarding punitive damages “under” that same claim is irreconcilably inconsistent.
2. Whether the verdict could be sustained by characterizing the form as a general verdict, a Rule 49(a) special verdict, or a Rule 49(b) general verdict with interrogatories.
3. Whether, after the jury was discharged, the proper remedy for the inconsistency was amendment of the judgment or a new trial on the retaliatory-discharge claim.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment insofar as it rested on the inconsistent retaliatory-discharge verdict and punitive-damages award.
- The court held the verdict was internally inconsistent and could not be reconciled under any Rule 49 framework.
- Because the jury had been discharged and could not be sent back to clarify the inconsistency, the court remanded for a new trial on the retaliatory-discharge claim.

## Legal Principles

- A factually inconsistent jury verdict cannot stand when the liability finding and damages award cannot be reconciled.
- A verdict form that is neither a proper Rule 49(a) special verdict nor a Rule 49(b) general verdict with interrogatories does not supply the factual findings needed to reconcile inconsistencies.
- When an inconsistency is discovered only after discharge of the jury, and clarification by resubmission is unavailable, the appropriate remedy is a new trial on the affected claim.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit set aside the punitive-damages award tied to the retaliatory-discharge count because the jury simultaneously found no liability and awarded punitive damages on that claim, and it ordered a new trial on retaliatory discharge as the only workable remedy after the jury’s discharge.


Turyna v. Martam Constr. Co., 83 F.3d 178 (7th Cir. 1996)