~ Cites Lack of Rational Basis, Improper Evidence And Instructions ~
GAINESVILLE – Attorneys for Alachua County Sheriff’s Office have formally requested a significant reduction to the $15 million jury award granted to a sheriff's office employee, arguing the verdict is grossly excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. The award came on Feb. 7 when an all-white jury handed down a more than $15 million verdict after a weeklong trial in which Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) Sergeant Kevin Davis, also white, claimed racial discrimination and retaliation.
The jury awarded Davis, the plaintiff, $115,724 for lost wages and benefits. The jury also awarded an astounding $15,000,000 for emotional pain and mental anguish, although no medical records were admitted, nor were there any medical or psychological expert witnesses who testified to the extent of such pain and anguish.
In a motion filed on February 21, 2025, the Sheriff's legal team contends the multimillion-dollar judgment, awarded for emotional distress and lost wages in a workplace discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, “shocks the judicial conscience” and should be lowered to $30,000 for emotional damages and $16,457 for lost wages.
Davis, who remains employed with the Sheriff’s office and according to the Sheriff’s motion, has never lost pay or been disciplined, alleged emotional harm stemming from adverse employment actions. However, according to the Sheriff’s motion, the plaintiff's evidence of emotional distress was limited to general claims of trouble sleeping, occasional crying spells, feelings of isolation, and concerns over blood pressure—without medical diagnosis or expert testimony to support the claims.
“The evidence presented provides little detail of the duration, severity or consequences of the condition,” the motion states, labeling the plaintiff's claims as “garden variety” emotional distress that typically warrant only modest compensation.
Disputing the Numbers
During closing arguments, the plaintiff’s attorney suggested the jury award $11 million – calculating $1 million for each year of alleged past emotional distress and $8 million for future distress. The jury ultimately returned a verdict totaling $15 million, an amount the Sheriff's attorneys argue is arbitrary and fueled by passion rather than fact.
“The extra four million dollars has absolutely no basis in the record for support,” the motion argues, suggesting the jury's verdict functioned more as punitive damages – prohibited under the law in this case – disguised as compensation.
Caps On Damages Awards
Beyond contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the Sheriff’s office also pointed to statutory limits on damages under both federal and state law. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, compensatory damages are capped at $300,000 for large employers, while Florida’s Civil Rights Act (FCRA) imposes a $200,000 cap on claims against government entities.
“Even considering the uncapped claims under Section 1981, the most that the evidence supports is an award of $30,000,” the Sheriff’s attorneys wrote.
Future Pay Dispute
The motion also challenges the jury’s award of $115,724 in lost wages and benefits, asserting that figure improperly includes front pay – a form of relief that courts, not juries, are tasked with determining. The Sheriff’s motion points to the Plaintiff’s expert, stating that the plaintiff's actual lost wages and benefits total just $16,457.
Motion to Set Aside the Verdict
In addition to the remittitur request, the Sheriff’s Office is seeking to have the jury’s verdict set aside entirely. One of the key issues raised in the motion is the alleged violation of attorney-client privilege. The Plaintiff’s legal team, according to the Sheriff’s motion, improperly questioned witnesses about confidential communications between the Sheriff’s Office and its legal counsel. The defense argues that this violated established legal protections and unfairly tainted the trial by introducing privileged information to the jury.
Further compounding the issue, the Sheriff’s Office claims that the Plaintiff introduced irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, including references to other African American employees with criminal backgrounds. These references, the Sheriff argues, were not only unsupported by evidence but were used to improperly suggest a pattern of racial discrimination that was not directly related to Kevin Davis’s case. The motion asserts that this type of evidence was inflammatory and unjustly biased the jury against the Sheriff’s Office.
Hearsay and Improper Evidence
The Sheriff’s team also objects to the admission of hearsay evidence. Several statements made by Sheriff’s Office employees were admitted under the Florida Evidence Code’s party admission rule, but the defense argues that these statements were not appropriately authenticated. Because the witnesses did not meet the necessary criteria, the defense claims that the statements should have been excluded from the trial. As a result, they believe the jury was exposed to irrelevant information that unfairly impacted their verdict.
Flawed Jury Instructions
Another critical point in the motion is the contention that the jury instructions regarding retaliation claims were misleading. The Sheriff argues that the court’s instructions improperly grouped several separate acts of alleged retaliation together, preventing the jury from evaluating each one on its own merits. The defense asserts that this led the jury to mistakenly weigh each action in a cumulative manner, which prejudiced the Defendant by making the individual acts appear more significant than they were.
Request for a New Trial
If the court does not set aside the verdict, the Sheriff’s legal team is requesting a new trial. They contend that the errors made during the trial, particularly the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, as well as the improper closing argument, deprived the Sheriff’s Office of a fair trial. The Sheriff’s Office argues that the cumulative effect of these mistakes resulted in an unjust verdict, including the inflated emotional distress award, and that a new trial is necessary to ensure fairness.
Additionally, the Sheriff’s legal team challenges the Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which, in accordance with a 1978 case referred to as “Monell,” required the Plaintiff to prove that the Sheriff’s Office had a discriminatory custom, policy, or practice that led to retaliation or race discrimination. The defense asserts that the jury was not properly instructed on this matter and did not make the required findings. Without these findings, the defense argues, the Plaintiff is not entitled to damages under the civil rights statute.
A Call for Fairness
The Sheriff’s Office emphasizes that the trial’s fairness was compromised by the introduction of inflammatory and irrelevant evidence, hearsay, and the improper jury instructions. The motion argues that these issues unfairly swayed the jury and led to a verdict that was not based on the greater weight of the evidence.
As the court reviews the motions, a decision is expected soon regarding whether the jury’s verdict will be set aside or a new trial will be ordered.
The motions requests that the presiding judge:
- Set aside the jury verdict and enter a directed verdict in favor of the Sheriff’s Office or grant its motion for a new trial; and
- Reduce the damages in line with the Sheriff's arguments if broader post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict are not granted.
As of March 4, 2025, no response from the Plaintiff has appeared on the Clerk of Courts website. The motions filed by the Sheriff’s Office do not represent an appeal but rather are post-trial motions. An appeal, if any, would be likely be filed within 30 days after entry of a final judgment or ruling on a motion for reconsideration, which has not occurred yet.
# # #
email editor@
alachuatoday.com
November is Manatee Awareness Month, and for good reason. Florida manatees are on the move, seeking warm-water sites to spend the winter. That means boaters must be cautious and watch for Florida’s official marine mammal and for changing speed zones on waterways.