Kenny Faulk v. Dimerco Express USA Corp.

── Kenny Faulk v. Dimerco Express USA Corp. ── Case No.: 24-12603 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12603 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 of 41 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12603 ____________________ KENNY FAULK, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DIMERCO EXPRESS USA CORP., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-01850-MLB ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, ABUDU, Circuit Judge, and CONWAY,* District Judge. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether a lawyer’s miscon- duct and alleged errors by the district court in admitting evidence USCA11 Case: 24-12603 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2 of 41 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12603 require a new trial and whether awards of compensatory and puni- tive damages were excessive. Dimerco Express USA, a transporta- tion company, conditionally hired Kenny Faulk for an Atlanta sales job, but withdrew his offer when the president of Dimerco discov- ered Faulk was black. Faulk sued Dimerco for racial discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A jury awarded Faulk $390,000 in damages for lost wages and emotional distress, and $3 million in punitive dam- ages. Dimerco moved the district court for a new trial based on the misconduct of Faulk’s counsel and evidentiary rulings by the dis- trict court. Alternatively, Dimerco asked the district court to remit the compensatory damages and to reduce the punitive damages. The district court denied Dimerco’s motions. Because the district court cured the lawyer’s misconduct and did not reversibly err in its evidentiary rulings, we affirm its denial of a new trial. Because the compensatory damages were supported by the evidence, we also affirm the denial of remittitur. And because the punitive dam- ages are not unconstitutionally excessive for Dimerco’s reprehensi- ble conduct, we affirm the denial of the motion to reduce them. I. BACKGROUND We view “the facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” Yates v. Pinellas Hematology & Oncology, P.A., 21 F.4th 1288, * The Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 24-12603 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3 of 41 24-12603 Opinion of the Court 3 1295 (11th Cir. 2021). We first recount those facts before describing the proceedings in the district court. A. Dimerco’s Discrimination Against Faulk Dimerco Express Group is a multinational transportation company with several onshore offices, including one in Atlanta. It is based in Taiwan, and the defendant is its United States subsidiary, Dimerco Express USA. We refer to the defendant subsidiary as Di- merco. In March 2018, the founder of the parent company, Paul Chien, met with Herbert Liou in Los Angeles while interviewing him for the presidency of Dimerco. At Chien’s request, Liou sub- mitted a manage