## Facts

- Julius Whitten, a Black union member over age 50, worked as a parking attendant at the same garage for about 28 years.
- In 1995, Cross Garage Corp. took over management of the garage; Joseph Vassallo, Cross Garage’s owner, managed the site and supervised Whitten.
- Vassallo allegedly stated he would fire, force the retirement of, or transfer Whitten and two similarly situated coworkers; all three were Black, union members, and over age 50.
- The other two employees retired; Whitten remained employed.
- Over the next several years, Whitten alleged Vassallo subjected him to frequent verbal abuse, including racial slurs, in front of customers and coworkers.
- In 1997, Vassallo converted the employees’ locker room and toilet into a private office, leaving workers without restroom access during shifts.
- Whitten alleged that, as a result, employees were forced to urinate into garage drains and dispose of feces in garbage cans.
- Whitten eventually took a second job at another garage while continuing to work at Cross Garage.
- In 1999, Vassallo fired Whitten and allegedly used a racial slur at the time of termination.
- Whitten sued Cross Garage and Vassallo asserting federal claims including Title VII (and related damages provisions), the ADEA, and parallel New York State and New York City human rights claims, plus a retaliatory-discharge claim under N.Y. Labor Law § 740 tied to reporting health violations to the New York City Department of Health.
- Defendants failed to answer; the court entered a default judgment on liability and referred the case to a magistrate judge for an inquest on damages.
- At the inquest hearing, Whitten and his wife testified; defendants submitted no opposing evidence.

## Issues

1. What compensatory damages (including lost wages and emotional-distress damages) should be awarded following a default judgment on liability for Whitten’s discrimination and retaliation claims?
2. Whether punitive damages were available and warranted on the inquest record under the federal “malice or reckless indifference” standard for intentional discrimination damages.
3. Whether, and in what amount, attorneys’ fees and costs should be awarded under the applicable fee-shifting provisions.
4. How to allocate damages among overlapping federal, state, and city claims to avoid duplicative recovery and account for federal statutory limits.

## Decision

- The magistrate judge recommended awarding economic damages (including back pay) based on the proof Whitten submitted and testimony at the inquest, with appropriate adjustments for interim earnings.
- The magistrate judge recommended a substantial emotional-distress award, crediting testimony about years of racial slurs, humiliation, and the severe impact of the loss of restroom facilities and the manner of termination.
- The magistrate judge recommended punitive damages, finding the conduct intentional and sufficiently extreme to meet the federal standard for punitive awards in discrimination cases.
- The magistrate judge recommended awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, subject to adequate documentation.
- The recommended damages were organized to prevent double recovery across overlapping statutory schemes while still providing full compensation where the law permitted it.

## Legal Principles

- After entry of default, well-pleaded allegations establishing liability are treated as true, but the plaintiff must prove damages at an inquest with reasonable certainty.
- Back pay is a standard make-whole remedy in employment discrimination cases and is typically reduced by interim earnings when supported by the record.
- Emotional-distress damages may be supported by testimonial proof (including from family members) and may be higher where harassment is prolonged, public, and degrading.
- Punitive damages under federal employment discrimination law may be awarded when the defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights.
- Attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff under fee-shifting statutes, and courts review billing records and rates for reasonableness.
- Where federal, state, and local claims overlap, courts avoid duplicative recovery by allocating remedies across claims while considering any federal limits on certain categories of damages.

## Conclusion

In this damages inquest following a default judgment, the court recommended significant economic, emotional-distress, and punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, based on proof that Whitten endured years of race-based abuse and degrading working conditions and was ultimately discharged in a racially charged incident, with damages structured to prevent duplication across overlapping federal, state, and city claims.


Whitten v. Cross Garage Corp., 2003 WL 21744088 (2003)