Case L:L2-cv-0I236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed O9l27lI8 Page L ol L7

1'
FlLi::*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK l.:".:.: r 7 ':r:i*

PAMELA S. SMALL,

Plaintiff,
V. VERDICT FORM
12-CV-1236S
THE STATE NEWYORK, et al.,

Defendants.

We, the Jury, retu:rn the following verdict in Pamela S. Small v.....The State of New

York, et al., Docket No, 12-CV-12365.

vERDICT OF tFlE JURY

Having been instructed on the law applicable to this case, you are now required to

return a unani,mgus verdict. Follow the directions on this form ca,refully. Your answers to

the questions must be unanimous. Any findings you make must be based on a

preponderance of the evidence.

Proceed to the Next Page

1
 Case L:L2-cv-0I236-WMS-MJR Document 1-93 Filed 091271L8 Page 2 o'f 17

First and Second Glaims:

Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of i964
Hostile work Environmenusexual Harassment and Retariation

First Glaim
Hosti le Work Envi ronmenUSexua,l Haras-smeq!

Liabilitv

Question 1. Did Plaintiff Pamela Small prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that New York state Department of corrections and
community supervision (Doccs) subjected her to a hostire work
environmenUsexual harassment in violation of Tifle Vll of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964?

Yes I INo
X
lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 2 on the next page.

lf you answered "No," proceed to Question 3 on page 4. Do not

answer Question 2.

2
 Case 1,:L2-cv-0I236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 09127118 Page 3 of L7

First Glaim
Hostile Work EnvironmenUSexual Harasslnent

Affirmative Defense

Question 2. Did Defendant New York State Department of Corrections and

Community Supervision (DOCCS) prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and prompfly
correct any discriminatory behavior directed against Plaintiff Pamela
Small and that Plaintiff Pamela Small unreasonably failed to take
advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by
Defendant New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision (DOCCS) or that she othenruise failed to
avoid harm?

I lYes No
il,

Proceed to the next page.

3
 Case I:\2-cv-01236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 0912711.8 Page 4 ol L7

Seco Glaim
Retaliation

Liabilitv

Question 3. Did Plaintiff Pamela small prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the New York state Department of corrections and
community supervision (Doccs) subjected her to retaliation in
violation of Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

ffv"" I INo

Proceed to the next page.

4
 Case L:I2-cv-OL236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 09127fl'8 Page 5 oI L7

F,irst and Second Claims:

Title Vll of the civ|l Rigrhts Act of 1964
Hostile work E:nvi ronment/sexual Ha rassment an d Reta.lriation

Dama,geq

Questio:n 4, What amount of compe:nsatory d:a:t:nag:es, i,f a:ny, d.o yOu fin:d that
Plaintiff :Pamela srna,ll should be awa,rded for Defendant New york
state Departrnent of corrections and commu,n,ity surpervision's
(DOCCS) violation o:f her Title Vl,l r:ights?

(&!er lf you find that Plaintiff Famela Srnall has not proven
sfl! compensatory damog,ts$n you must enter "$1.00 -
Nom,inal" on the line,below.)

$ L 00 000

Proceed to the next page.

5
 Case I:L2-cv-01236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 09l27lLB Page 6 of L7

Third Claim
42 U.S.C. S 1983
Hostile Work Environment
Defendant Carl Guer

Liabilitv

Question 5. Did Plaintiff Pamela Small prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that Defendant Carl Cuer deprived her of her federally
protected rightto be free from a hostile work environment, in violation
of 42 U.S.C. S 1983?

ffi ve" I INo

lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 6 on the next page.

lf you answered "No," proceed to Question g on page 9. Do not

answer Questions 6, 7, and 8.

6
 Case L:L2-cv-O1236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 091271L8 Page 7 ol L7

Affilmative Defense

Question 6. Did Defendant carl cuer prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he neither knew nor
should have known that his actions deprived Plaintiff pamela small
of her federally protected right to be free from a hostire work
environment?

[ ]Yes
I No

lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question g on page

answer Questions 7 and 8.
g. Do not

lf you answered "No," proceed to Question Z on the next page.

Proceed to the next page.

7
 Case 1-:t2-cv-Ot236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 091271t8 Page I oI 17

Damaqes

Question 7. what amount of compensatory damages, if any, do you find that

Plaintiff Pamela small should be awarded for Defendant carl cuer's
deprivation of her federally protected right to be free from a hostile
work environment?

(Note: lf you find that Plaintiff Pamela Small has not proven
any compensatory damages, you must enter "$1.00
Nominal" on the line below.)

grt
$

Question 8. what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you find that plaintiff
Pamela small should be awarded for Defendant carl cuer's
deprivation of her federally protected right to be free from a hostile
work environment?

(Note: You must complete the line below. lf you find that
Plaintiff Pamela Small is not entitled to punitive damages,
enter "none". lf you find that she is entifled to punitive
damages, enter the dollar figure.)

$ 0

Proceed to the next page.

8
 Case L:12-cv-01236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed O9l27lI8 Page 9 of 17

Third Glaim
42 U.S.C. S 1e83
Hostile Work Environment
Defendant Sandra Dolce

Liabilitv

Question 9. Did Plaintiff Pamela small prove, by a preponderance of .the

evidence, that Defendant sandra Dolce deprived her of her federally
protected right to be free from a hostile work environment, in violation
of 42 U.S.C. S 1983?

ffv"" llNo

lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 10 on the next page.

lf you answered "No," proceed to Question 13 on page 12. Do not

answer Questions 10, 11, and 12.

I
 Case L:L2-cv-O1236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 09l27lLB Page IO of 17

Affirmative Defense

Question 10. Did Defendant sandra Dolce prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she
neither knew nor should have known that her actions deprived
Plaintiff Pamela small of her federally protected right to be free from
a hostile work environment?

[ ]Yes W"
lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 13 on page 12. Do not
answer Questions 11 and 12.

lf you answered "No," proceed to Question 11 on the next page.

Proceed to the next page.

10
 Case I:L2-cv-0I236-WMS-MJR Document l-93 Filed O9l27lLB Page LL of L7

Damaqes

Question 11. what amount of compensatory damages, if any, do you find that
Plaintiff Pamela small should be awarded for Defendant sandra
Dolce's deprivation of her federally protected right to be free from a
hostile work environment?

Note:. lf you find that Plaintiff Pamela Small has not proven
any compensatory damages, you must enter '$1.00
Nominal" on the line below.)

Question 12. what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you find that plaintiff
Pamela small should be awarded for Defendant sandra Dolce's
deprivation of her federally protected right to be free from a hostile
work environment?

(Note: You must complete the line below. lf you find that
Plaintiff Pamela Small is not entiiled to punitive damages,
enter "none". lf you find that she is entifled to punitive
damages, enter the dollar figure.)

$ NO E

Proceed to the next page.

11
 Case 1,:L2-cv-0I236-WMS-MJR Document L93 Filed O9l27lLB Page 12 ol L7

Third Claim
42 U.S.C. S 1983
Hostile Work Environment
Defendant James Gonway

Liabilitv

Question 13. Did Plaintiff Pamela small prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that Defendant James conway deprived her of her
federally protected right to be free from a hostile work environment,
in violation of 42 U.S.C. S 1983?

IINo
frv"'
lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 14 on the next page.

lf you answered "No," proceed to Question 1T on page 15. Do not

answer Questions 14, 15, and 16.

12
 Case L:I2-cv-O\236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed 09l27lIB Page t3 of L7

Affi Defense

Question 14. Did Defendant James conway prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he neither
knew nor should have known that his actions deprived plaintiff
Pamela small of her federally protected right to be free from a hostile
work environment?

[ ]Yes X*"
lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 17 on page 15. Do not
answer Questions 15 and 16

lf you answered "No," proceed to Question 15 on the next page.

Proceed to the next page.

13
 Case L:L2-cv-O!236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed O9l27lI8 Page t4 of 17

Damages

Question 15. What amount of compensatory damages, if any, do you find that
Plaintiff Pamela small should be awarded for Defendant James
conway's deprivation of her federally protected right to be free from
a hostile work environment?

Note:. tf you find that Plaintiff Pamela Small has not proven
any compensatory damages, you must enter ,,$1.00
Nominal" on the line below.)

$ zqo,chb

Question 16. what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you find that plaintiff
Pamela small should be awarded for Defendant James conway's
deprivation of her federally protected right to be free from a hostile
work environment?

(Note: You must complete the line below. lf you find that
Plaintiff Pamela Small is not entitled to punitive damages,
enter "none", lf you find that she is entifled to punitive
damages, enter the dollar figure.)

$ NoNE

Proceed to the next page.

14
 Case L:12-cv-0L236-WMS-MJR Document 193 Filed O9l27lLB Page L5 ol L7

Fou,rth Glaim
New York H,uman Righb Law g 296 (6)
4;din,g and Abetti:ng U:nlawfu,l D'iscrimination and Hostile Work,Env,ironment
Defenda,nt Garl Cuer

tiabi,litv

Question 17. Did Plaintiff Pamela small prove, by a preponderance of the

evidenoe, that ,Detend,ant Carl Cuer aid,ed and abetted u,nlavvful
discrim,lna,tion and hostile wo,rk environment, ,in violation of the New
Yor:k Human Rights Law g 296 (6)?

1t'""" I INo

lf you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 18 on the next page.

lf you answered "No," proceed to page 17 . Do inot answer euestion

18.

15
 Case 1-:I2-cv-OL236-WMS-MJR Document l-93 Filed O9l27lt9 Page t6 of L7

Damages

Question 18. what amount of compensatory damages, if any, do you find that
Plaintiff Pamela small should be awarded for Defendant carl cuer's
aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination and hostile work
environment, in violation of the New york Human Rights Law 2g6
$
(6)?

(Note: lf you find that Plaintiff Pamela small has not proven
any compensatory damages, you must enter ,'$1.00
Nominal" on the line below.)

$ CCD

Question 19. what amount of lost pay, if any, do you find that plaintiff pamela
small should be awarded for Defendant carl cuer,s aiding and
abetting unlaMul discrimination and hostile work environment, in
violation of the New York Human Rights Law g 296 (6)?

Loss of Back Pay $ 3.lo,oo

Loss of Front Pay $ I @ m

Proceed to the next page.

16
 Case L:L2-cv-O1236-WMS-MJR Document 193 FiledO9l2TlLB Page L7 of t7

Stop, This is the end of the verdict form. The foreperson must sign below and notify
the Court, in writing, that the jury tras reached a verdict.

I certify the above verdict to be true and accurate.

Dated: septembe ,L\ ,2018

Buffalo, NY

U OREPERSON

tprrnsr nrNIFMsER TH

Now that you have completed' the verdict sheet, place it in the envelope provided and
seal the envelope. lnform the Court by a written note that you have reached a verdict.
Do not disclose the verdict to the Court or anyone else until you are asked to do so by
the Judge in open Court.

17