Belcastro-Gonzalez v. City of Omaha, No. 23-1553 (8th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court's judgment in favor of a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the city of Omaha and the chief of police of the Omaha Police Department. Katherine Belcastro-Gonzalez had filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment by a coworker in 2010, and in 2017, she discovered that her complaint wasn't adequately investigated. She alleged that her subsequent applications for promotions were denied due to her complaints about sex discrimination. A jury found in favor of Belcastro-Gonzalez and awarded her $700,000 in damages. The lower court also awarded her attorney's fees.

The city appealed, arguing first that the district court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. The appeals court held that it could not review this decision after a trial on the merits. The city should have raised these issues in a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. The city also argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence from proceedings before the Nebraska Employment Opportunity Commission. However, the appeals court found that the admission of this evidence was not an abuse of discretion. The city's last argument was against the size of the attorney’s fees award. The appeals court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the fee, including fees incurred during the administrative proceedings.

Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff, a City of Omaha police officer, brought this action alleging the City retaliated against her for protected activity of filing discrimination complaints. A jury found for her and awarded her $700,000 in damages. The City appeals. The district court's order denying the City's motion for summary judgment is not reviewable after a trial on the merits; the City's attempt to recast the issue, after the filing of the opening briefs, to raise the issue as a challenge to the district court's order denying a motion for judgment as a matter of law comes too late; the district court did not err in allowing the admission of evidence from the Nebraska Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings to impeach the police chief's trial testimony; the award of attorney's fees is affirmed; fees for work performed during the administrative proceedings were properly included in the award.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1553 ___________________________ Katherine Belcastro-Gonzalez, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. City of Omaha; Todd Schmaderer, Chief of Police of the Omaha Police Department, in his official Capacity, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants, Jean Stothert, Mayor of the City of Omaha; Tim Young, Former Human Relations Director for the City of Omaha, in his official and individual capacity, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: November 16, 2023 Filed: March 11, 2024 ____________ Before COLLOTON,1 BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ 1 Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Katherine Belcastro-Gonzalez sued the city of Omaha and the chief of police of the Omaha Police Department, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of BelcastroGonzalez. The district court2 awarded attorney’s fees to Belcastro-Gonzalez and entered judgment. The defendants appeal, and we affirm. I. Belcastro-Gonzalez was a police officer for the city of Omaha. In July 2010, she filed a complaint with the police department alleging sexual harassment by a coworker. In 2017, Belcastro-Gonzalez learned that her complaint was not properly investigated. On that basis, she submitted a new complaint to the mayor’s office alleging that the City improperly investigated her previous complaint. The City’s human resources director investigated and issued a report in September 2017. The report explained that the investigation did not prove or disprove Belcastro-Gonzalez’s allegations and that no further action would be taken. In March 2018, Belcastro-Gonzalez filed a charge of discrimination with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. She claimed, among other things, that the police department denied her application for the position of acting deputy chief because she had complained about sex discrimination. Belcastro-Gonzalez applied for two more deputy chief positions later in 2018. She ranked first out of eight candidates based on training, experience, and performance in a simulation exercise. The police chief, however, did not select 2 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2- Belcastro-Gonzalez for either position and instead chose the candidates who ranked second and fifth. Belcastro-Gonzalez brought a second charge of discrimination with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission and received a notice of her right to sue. Belcastro-Gonzalez then brought this action alleging that the City retaliated against her for the protected activity of filing discrimination complaints. The district court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial. A jury found in favor of Belcastro-Gonzalez and assessed $700,000 in damages. The court denied the City’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded attorney’s fees to Belcastro-Gonzalez. II. The City’s first argument seeks reversal of the district court’s order denying the City’s motion for summary judgment. A district court’s order denying summary judgment, however, is not reviewable after a trial on the merits. Eaddy v. Yancey, 317 F.3d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 2003). An unsuccessful movant must present the issues in a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and appeal from any denial of that motion. Dahlin v. Lyondell Chem. Co., 881 F.3d 599, 602-03 (8th Cir. 2018). After Belcastro-Gonzalez filed her appellee’s brief, the City moved to amend its opening brief to restate the issue on appeal as a challenge to the district court’s order denying a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The substance of the opening brief, however, challenges the denial of the City’s motion for summary judgment. The motion to recast the appeal comes too late. A change in course at this point would require a new round of briefing by both parties after the case has been fully briefed. We deny the motion to amend and reject the City’s challenge to the pretrial order denying a motion for summary judgment. -3- The City next argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence from proceedings before the Nebraska Employment Opportunity Commission. We review the court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. Gruttemeyer v. Transit Auth., 31 F.4th 638, 643 (8th Cir. 2022). During proceedings before the Commission, the City submitted a document that gave reasons for declining to promote Belcastro-Gonzalez. The City moved in limine to exclude that evidence at trial. The district court decided that evidence relating to the Commission’s proceedings is generally inadmissible, but that some aspects of the proceeding could be admissible to rebut the City’s contention, or for impeachment purposes. The court reserved ruling on admissibility in this case. At trial, the court admitted evidence that discussed the police chief’s response to the Commission on behalf of the City. When the police chief advanced reasons at trial that were not presented to the Commission, Belcastro-Gonzalez argued that the City’s new justifications for declining a promotion were not credible. The court did not preclude the City from offering its entire set of reasons for the promotion decision or from explaining why certain reasons may not have been presented to the Commission. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of the City’s potential inconsistency as a ground for impeachment of the police chief’s explanation at trial. The City also challenges the amount of the attorney’s fees award to BelcastroGonzalez. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), a court may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees. We review the amount of fees awarded for abuse of discretion. Id. at 649. The City maintains that plaintiff’s counsel charged an unreasonable hourly rate, spent too much time on the case, and overbilled for certain tasks. The district court, however, permissibly concluded based on familiarity with rates in the area and -4- counsel’s experience that the hourly rates were reasonable. See Miller v. Dugan, 764 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2014). The court found that the number of hours expended was reasonable for a case that “involved several thorny evidentiary issues,” as well as “extensive motion practice, discovery, and trial where the defendant mounted a vigorous defense.” We conclude that the court’s determination was within the range of its discretion. After examining the timesheets, the court found that the tasks were identified with sufficient specificity and were appropriate uses of time by lawyers, paralegals, and law clerks. While it is debatable whether the plaintiff’s legal team proceeded with maximum efficiency, we are not convinced that the district court abused its discretion by deeming the billing reasonable. The City also contends that fees incurred during the administrative proceedings should not be included in the award. But because the work performed during the administrative proceedings was both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII, the court properly included those fees. Bobbitt v. Paramount Cap Mfg. Co., 942 F.2d 512, 514 (8th Cir. 1991). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.