GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Attorneys are challenging a substantial $15 million racial discrimination verdict awarded in a lawsuit involving former Alachua County Sheriff Clovis Watson Jr., alleging the amount is excessively high. The legal complaint originated when Sgt. Kevin Davis, a white deputy, claimed he was unfairly passed over for promotion due to racial considerations, culminating in a jury verdict on February 7.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury decided to compensate Davis with $15 million for his emotional distress and mental suffering. This figure also includes more than $115,000 designated for lost wages and benefits. However, representatives for the sheriff’s office argue that Davis retained his position at the department, which they claim negates the need for such a large compensatory sum. They maintain that he should only receive $16,457 for the wages lost from not being promoted.
The legal team representing the sheriff’s office has petitioned for either a reduction in the monetary award to $30,000 specifically for emotional damages, in addition to recovering lost wages, or for a new trial altogether. They claim that the trial evidence does not justify the considerable jury award, noting that it significantly exceeds the original sum requested by the plaintiff.
During the trial, Davis gave a personal testimony about the impact of the alleged discrimination. He described experiencing increased sadness, loss of sleep, social isolation, and heightened blood pressure. Nevertheless, attorneys for the sheriff’s office highlighted that Davis did not provide any evidence of medical or psychological treatment related to these conditions.
Legal experts often point out that punitive damages are not typically allowed against government entities. In this case, the defense argues that the jury’s decision to provide such a substantial amount for emotional distress could be an attempt to circumvent this restriction, implying that the award was indirectly serving as punitive damages.
As of now, Davis’ legal representative has not issued a formal response to the recent motions filed by the sheriff’s office.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the details, including people, facts, and circumstances, may be subject to inaccuracies. Any concerns or requests for article removal, retraction, or correction can be directed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.