Federal Jury Finds Retaliation by Township Official, Awards Punitive Damages After Sixth Circuit Reinstated Case

A federal jury has returned a verdict in favor of Julie Tamm and Roseanna Przybylski in their civil-rights lawsuit against Lincoln Township Zoning Administrator Milan Nerad, finding that he violated their constitutional rights and awarding punitive damages against him.

After a multi-day trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on their federal constitutional claims arising from enforcement actions taken after the plaintiffs had previously exercised their right to seek relief in federal court.

The jury awarded each plaintiff $1 in compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages against Nerad. The verdict also establishes the plaintiffs as prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, entitling them to seek an award of attorney fees and costs from the court. 

The case had already attracted appellate attention before trial. The district court originally dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal retaliation claims, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and sent the case back for trial. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had presented evidence from which “a reasonable juror could determine” that adverse action and causation existed and that “a reasonable trier of fact could infer” that the prior lawsuit was a motivating factor behind the challenged enforcement actions.

During trial, plaintiffs presented evidence that they were singled out for enforcement actions not taken against similarly situated individuals. The jury ultimately agreed, rejecting Nerad’s innocence defense and concluding that constitutional violations had occurred.

“Every citizen has the right to go to court without fear that a government official will retaliate against them afterward,” said attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC, who represented the plaintiffs. “The Sixth Circuit held that a jury should decide whether retaliation occurred. After hearing the evidence, the jury did exactly that.”

Cases of this type are exceptionally uncommon. While citizens frequently disagree with zoning decisions, very few cases ever reach a jury on claims that a government official used enforcement authority to retaliate against a citizen for exercising constitutional rights. Fewer still result in a jury verdict finding a constitutional violation and awarding punitive damages against the individual official responsible for the conduct.

The verdict underscores the distinction between lawful enforcement and unconstitutional retaliation. Government officials possess broad authority to enforce ordinances and regulations, but the Constitution prohibits the use of that authority to punish citizens for exercising protected rights, including the right to petition the government and seek relief in court. By awarding punitive damages, the jury concluded that Nerad’s conduct warranted punishment and deterrence beyond a mere finding of liability.

Although the compensatory damages were nominal, the jury’s punitive-damages award reflects the seriousness with which it viewed the constitutional violation. Civil-rights trials against local government officials are rare. Successful civil-rights jury verdicts against local officials are rarer still. A verdict that includes punitive damages is rarer yet.

“The right to seek judicial relief would mean little if government officials could later retaliate against citizens for exercising it,” Ellison added. “This verdict sends a clear message that constitutional rights do not end when a citizen walks into a courthouse.”

The Court will enter judgment on the verdict and later determine the amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded to the prevailing plaintiffs.

The case is Tamm et al. v. Nerad, Case No. 1:23-cv-00449, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.