Gray v. Birchfield & Koch Foods: The Eleventh Circuit Confirms that More Than One “Prevailing Party” May Exist When a Single Plaintiff Sues Multiple Defendants

1. Introduction

Ka’Toria Gray, a nurse employed by Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC (“Ala-Koch”), sued her former employer, its parent corporation, and two human-resources (HR) managers, Melissa McDickinson and David Birchfield, after a series of alleged sexual advances culminating in an assault in McDickinson’s garage.

The litigation produced a mixed jury verdict: Gray recovered compensatory and punitive damages for assault and battery against the two HR managers, but lost all of her federal Title VII claims against the corporate defendants. The HR managers appealed the assault/battery and punitive-damages findings; Gray cross-appealed on several issues, including the denial of a new trial on her Title VII hostile-environment claim and the district court’s allocation of costs.

In a published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on every issue. Of greatest doctrinal significance, the Court:

• Clarified the interaction between its 2022 decision in Royal Palm Properties, LLC v. Pink Palm Properties, LLC, 38 F.4th 1372, and cases with multiple defendants, holding that more than one prevailing party can exist in a single suit where a single plaintiff sues multiple defendants.
• Re-emphasised the evidentiary standards for assault, battery, and punitive damages under Alabama law; and
• Confirmed that post-verdict challenges based on allegedly inconsistent jury findings are waived if not raised before the jury is discharged.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit’s key holdings were:

1. Sufficiency of the evidence – Assault & Battery: Ample testimony supported the jury’s finding that both McDickinson and Birchfield intentionally touched Gray in an offensive, sexual manner.
2. Punitive damages: The garage incident contained “circumstances of aggravation” (HR power imbalance, numerical superiority, explicit sexual propositions) satisfying Alabama’s clear-and-convincing standard.
3. Motion for new trial (Title VII): Gray waived her inconsistency argument by not objecting before the jury was discharged; the verdict was otherwise supported by sufficient evidence.
4. Constructive discharge: Because the jury rejected Gray’s hostile-environment claim, her constructive-discharge theory necessarily failed.
5. Prevailing-party status and costs: Gray was the prevailing party vis-à-vis the HR managers, while Koch Foods and Ala-Koch were prevailing parties vis-à-vis Gray. Royal Palm does not bar multiple prevailing parties when multiple defendants are involved.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Royal Palm Properties, LLC v. Pink Palm Properties, LLC, 38 F.4th 1372 (11th Cir. 2022) – limited courts to no more than one prevailing party in a two-party case, but said nothing about multi-party suits.
• Ex parte Atmore Community Hospital, 719 So. 2d 1190 (Ala. 1998) – set elements of battery with sexual overtones.
• Peete v. Blackwell, 504 So. 2d 222 (Ala. 1986) – punitive damages allowed where an assault is coupled with aggravating circumstances.
• Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) – elements of Title VII hostile-environment claims.
• Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) – “material alteration of the legal relationship” defines prevailing party.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Assault and Battery Evidence
The Court applied Alabama’s three-part test: intentional touching, intent to touch, and offensiveness. Gray’s testimony (hand on knee, forced dance, being “sandwiched,” a non-consensual kiss, attempted placement of her hand on McDickinson’s breast) satisfied each element. The Court compared these facts to Atmore Community Hospital and found them even more extreme.

(b) Punitive Damages
Alabama requires clear‐and‐convincing evidence of insult, aggravation, or conscious wrongdoing (§6-11-20). The HR managers’ seniority, the private setting, and the explicit propositions constituted “aggravating circumstances.” Disputes over Gray’s credibility were for the jury.

(c) New-Trial Motion & Waiver
Under Walter Int’l Prods. v. Salinas, objections to inconsistent verdicts must be raised before the jury is excused. Gray’s post-trial motion was too late.

(d) Multiple Prevailing Parties
The panel distinguished Royal Palm: that case addressed a symmetrical two-party trademark suit. In suits with one plaintiff and multiple defendants, different “legal relationships” are litigated between the plaintiff and each defendant. Hence, success against some (the HR managers) does not negate the defendants’ success against the plaintiff (Koch Foods/Ala-Koch). Treating the parties independently respects Rule 54(d)’s goal of reimbursing truly prevailing litigants.

3.3 Likely Impact

• Costs & fee-shifting: Litigants in the Eleventh Circuit can now confidently argue that prevailing-party status is assessed on a pair-wise basis in multi-defendant cases. Corporate defendants that defeat all claims can recover costs even if the plaintiff wins against co-defendants.
• Settlement leverage: Defendants with dissimilar exposure (e.g., individual employees vs. corporate employer) may evaluate settlement independently, knowing costs may be shifted separately.
• Case management: District courts must explicitly determine prevailing-party status for each litigant pairing, rather than seeking a single “winner.”
• Trial strategy & waiver: Parties must lodge inconsistency objections before the jury is discharged; otherwise, they lose that appellate avenue.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Assault vs. Battery: In civil Alabama law, “assault” is creating fear of harmful or offensive contact; “battery” is the actual contact. Here, both occurred.
• Clear-and-Convincing Evidence: More persuasive than “more likely than not,” but less than “beyond reasonable doubt.” Think 75–80 % certainty in the fact-finder’s mind.
• Circumstances of Aggravation: Factors such as power imbalance, humiliation, or threats that elevate simple battery to conduct warranting punitive damages.
• Prevailing Party (Rule 54(d)):: A party who obtains a court-ordered, enforceable change in its favour (money judgment, injunction, dismissal with prejudice).
• Waiver of Inconsistent-Verdict Challenge: If you think the jury’s answers are irreconcilable, you must raise it before the jury is released so the judge can send them back for clarification.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Gray v. Birchfield leaves intact the jury’s factual determinations while announcing an important procedural principle: when a single plaintiff sues multiple defendants, each defendant-plaintiff relationship is assessed separately for prevailing-party purposes. This clarification tempers the seemingly rigid “single prevailing party” language of Royal Palm and realigns Rule 54(d) with everyday multi-party litigation realities.

Beyond costs, the opinion underscores Alabama’s robust protection against non-consensual touching and its willingness to impose punitive damages where power and intimidation amplify sexual misconduct. Finally, the case is a textbook reminder of trial-preservation rules: objections not raised before the jury is dismissed are objections lost.