In the request for a new trial, contract attorneys from Whitney, Thompson and Jeffcoach LLP argue the trial should never have exceeded $200,000 for Wilson, who is Black, and $50,000 for Smith, who is white. If the judge would not grant a new trial, the motion says, the request asks the judge to reduce the payout.<\/p>\n
They argue the plaintiffs\u2019 request of the jury at trial of an amount between $5 million and $20 million was not based on any evidence and relied on the jury\u2019s emotions. The filing also argues the amount has no precedent in this sort of case.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe jury verdict in this action greatly exceeds awards that case law has held excessive, despite more concrete proof of more severe emotional distress in those other cases,\u201d the filing says.<\/p>\n
The motion for the new trial argues the limited time in question makes the award excessive. The judge restricted the time to about two years and four months, including a year while Wilson was on paid administrative leave, the city\u2019s attorneys argue.<\/p>\n
Smith worked for the city for about three months, the attorneys noted.<\/p>\n
While Wilson received a letter of reprimand and was investigated by an outside attorney as an employee, the city\u2019s attorneys argue the \u201cplaintiff did not present issue of any physical injury, medical condition or treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wilson shared her emotional stress during testimony. The motion argues they did not rise to a $15 million verdict.<\/p>\n
They went on to argue they believe the jury awarded such high damages to \u201cpunish the city,\u201d which was against the jury instructions.<\/p>\n
\u201cOther rhetoric or tone used by plaintiff\u2019s counsel encouraged the jury to smuggle punishment into its emotional distress award,\u201d the motion says.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff attorneys, Gary Goyette and Kevin Schwin, said they had attempted to go into mediation with the Fresno City Council after the verdict to come to a conclusion sooner. The council did not agree to it.<\/p>\n
The attorneys said the verdict will begin to accrue interest at about $50,000 a month as the city did not reach a new settlement. They said the appeal process would likely last a year or longer.<\/p>\n
Their comments came in the wake of Councilmember Miguel Arias saying publicly he believed<\/a> the city should pay out, \u201clearn from mistakes\u201d and \u201ctake responsibility\u201d for what happened to the ex-employees.<\/p>\n Fresno City Manager Georgeanne White said on March 30 the city<\/a> would put itself in a bind by not appealing, saying the city could lose its insurance coverage.<\/p>\n Goyette and Schwin said the city leaders have been disingenuous in how much money they\u2019ve spent on the case.<\/p>\n \u201cThis was not the first time the City Council had balked on an opportunity to settle this case for far less than this award is costing it,\u201d they wrote in an April 1 statement. \u201cTwice before this verdict was rendered, plaintiffs approached the city to settle this case and twice the city refused to make a serious offer.\u201d<\/p>\n They said on the day of the verdict, the city had never offered more than $400,000 total for both plaintiffs. The city has not confirmed that number.<\/p>\n They also noted the city has not been forthcoming with the amount of legal fees they\u2019ve paid in fighting the case for seven years. Goyette noted on Thursday the city\u2019s team has added a new attorney to the case.<\/p>\n The city has twice, including as recently as Tuesday, denied Public Records Act requests from The Bee. The latest denial said the fees were protected under attorney-client privileges.<\/p>\n The hearing on the motion was set for June 15.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Fresno Bee<\/p>\n