Malak Khatabi v. Car Auto Holdings LLC

── Malak Khatabi v. Car Auto Holdings LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12573 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 1 of 20 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12573 ____________________ MALAK KHATABI, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CAR AUTO HOLDINGS LLC, d.b.a. Palmetto Alfa Romeo Fiat, CARLOS A. RIOS, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-20458-EGT ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and HULL, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 24-12573 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 2 of 20 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12573 LUCK, Circuit Judge: Malak Khatabi sued Car Auto Holdings LLC—a car dealer- ship—and its manager, Carlos Rios, for sex discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. A jury awarded her $81,028 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. After trial, the dealership moved to reduce Khatabi’s damages. The district court agreed with the deal- ership that Khatabi’s total damages under Title VII were capped at $50,000, so it awarded Khatabi damages under the Act instead. Be- cause the Act doesn’t limit compensatory damages but does limit punitive damages to $100,000, the district court awarded her $181,028. Khatabi appealed. We reverse and remand with instructions. We agree with the district court that the jury’s damages award exceeded the stat- utory maximum amounts allowed by Title VII and the Act. Where that’s the case, a plaintiff’s damages must be reduced to the statu- tory maximum award supported by the jury’s verdict. What is that here? Because the jury found that the dealership violated Title VII and the Act, but didn’t allocate the damages between the federal and state sex-discrimination statutes, Khatabi’s award could be no more than the sum of the maximum damages available under each of those statutes. See Bradshaw v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 486 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2007). Based on the jury verdict, that was $481,028. Title VII’s $50,000 cap on damages for defendants with fewer than 101 employees could have further reduced Khatabi’s USCA11 Case: 24-12573 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 3 of 20 24-12573 Opinion of the Court 3 damages award. But the cap is an affirmative defense, which the dealership waived because it failed to plead or otherwise preserve the defense. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Car Auto Holdings does business as a Fiat dealership in Mi- ami. Khatabi worked at the dealership under Rios’s supervision for about four months. During those four months, Rios and some of his colleagues harassed Khatabi near-constantly—calling her “hot for an 18-year-old,” “forcing” her to accompany male customers on test drives and “use her looks” to persuade them to buy cars, and “s