The Denver-based federal appeals court put judges and lawyers on notice Monday that if a jury produces a verdict too confusing to interpret, a judge may ask jurors to reconsider their decision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit acknowledged its prior decisions did not permit judges to let juries clarify certain kinds of verdicts after trial. However, a three-judge panel relied on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent to conclude prompt reconsideration of confusing verdicts is allowed and even preferable.

“If the district court has concerns about the inconsistency of a jury’s verdicts, it may ask the jury to reconsider. It need not struggle to determine whether there is some way to reconcile apparently inconsistent verdicts,” wrote Judge Harris L Hartz in the March 31 opinion.

In the immediate case, the 10th Circuit was confronted with an unusual question: What were jurors thinking when they found a defendant had not violated civil rights law, yet simultaneously awarded a plaintiff $125,000 as punishment for violating her rights?

Stacie Culp and Stephanie Peters were servers at the Remington of Montrose Golf Club. Evidence at trial showed an assistant manager engaged in sexual harassment. While Remington performed a minimal investigation and gave the employee a punishment of demotion, suspension and probation, both plaintiffs ended up quitting.

They sued their former employer, alleging a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, plus retaliation in violation of federal and state law. 

At the 2023 jury trial, a special verdict form walked the jurors through the decision-making process. For Culp, the form was structured in the following way:

• First, did Culp prove a hostile work environment with sexual harassment? If so, jurors should write down a damages amount. If not, they should keep going

• Second, did Culp prove retaliation? If so, jurors should write down a damages amount. If not, they should “skip to Question No. 5”

• Question No. 5 — which, somewhat unclearly, jurors were to answer only if they said “yes” to the previous questions — asked whether Remington should pay Culp as punishment for maliciously harassing or retaliating against her

The jury answered in the negative for the first set of questions, yet it awarded Culp $125,000 in punitive damages.

After U.S. District Court Judge Regina M. Rodriguez read the verdict and as she was preparing to dismiss the jury, lawyers for both sides asked to speak privately.

“I don’t know what that actually — they shouldn’t have answered the question,” said defense attorney Nicholas H. Gower, referring to the punitive damages question.

“There may be some inconsistency,” added J. Keith Killian for the plaintiffs.

Rodriguez said she did not think the jury’s $125,000 award could stand based on how they answered the prior questions. But “the judge will have to enter a verdict after the jury has been dismissed,” she said.

Months later, after hearing the arguments from the parties, Rodriguez issued an order voiding the jury’s financial award to Culp. She explained that “the apparent inconsistency can be reconciled.”

Rodriguez acknowledged the jury simultaneously appeared to say Remington had not violated Culp’s rights under the law, but it nonetheless should be punished for sexually harassing or retaliating against her. It is possible, concluded Rodriguez, jurors believed Culp was harassed or retaliated against for “reasons other than those protected by” the law.

Alternatively, she deemed the jurors’ answer to Question No. 5 “superfluous” because they did not follow the direction not to answer it. She rejected the third possibility that jurors mistakenly believed they could only award damages once, and simply chose punitive damages.

On appeal to the 10th Circuit, the judges pondered what the jury could have been thinking.

“Do you view this as a case of jury confusion or jury disobedience?” asked Judge Richard E.N. Federico during oral arguments.

“We view this as a case of jury disobedience,” responded Gower. “Remington was not perfect in this case. There was a lot of evidence of all the things Remington could have done better. We view that the jury was trying to send Remington a message to do better.”

Ultimately, the panel noted the jury’s findings were “inconsistent on their face” and Rodriguez’s attempt to explain them away was unsatisfying. Hartz wrote that the jury necessarily had to find a violation in order to award punitive damages, so it did not make sense for the $125,000 award to be based on some non-legal reason. He also noted the verdict form was confusing.

“To begin with, there is a real possibility that the jury thought it was obeying the court’s instructions,” Hartz wrote. “First, because of some peculiarities of the verdict form, the jury may not have realized that it should answer Question 5 only if it answered Question 1 or 3 in the affirmative.”

When it is impossible to reconcile a contradictory verdict, “we must conclude that the jury was confused or abused its power and therefore order a new trial,” he concluded.

Hartz also acknowledged the 10th Circuit’s prior decisions essentially instructed Rodriguez to handle the issue as she handled it. However, a 2016 Supreme Court decision held that judges have the power to recall a jury in a civil case for the purpose of clarifying its verdict.

“Having to retry this case is unfortunate. That result could have been avoided if the district court had resubmitted the matter to the jurors with further instructions so that any misconceptions could be resolved,” Hartz wrote. But going forward, having juries reconsider their decision will avoid “impossible attempts to reconcile inconsistent verdicts and will reduce the number of unnecessary retrials.”

The case is Culp et al. v. Remington of Montrose Golf Club, LLC.