SHOCKING TO THE CONSCIENCE: SIX FIGURE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARDS IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES
Robert
S. Mantell
Rodgers,
Powers & Schwartz, LLP
(617)
742-7010
RMantell@TheEmploymentLawyers.com
©
October 2002
A
survey of punitive damage awards for employment discrimination claims in
1. Punitive Damages are Almost Always Awarded if Liability is Found
In cases in which the jury was permitted to award punitive damages, only one case was found in which a jury failed to award punitive damages after concluding that employment discrimination took place. Plaintiff’s lawyers should feel confident that a jury will award punitive damages if liability is found.
2. Punitive Damages Will Likely be
Awarded in an Amount of $100,000 or Higher
Of the sixty-six cases with awards of punitive damages, the award in forty of those cases was in the amount of $100,000 or greater.
Narrowing that inquiry to jury verdicts in c. 151B, Title VII and ADA claims (excluding other claims such as section 1983 claims against individuals), of forty-nine instances in which punitive damages were awarded, a whopping thirty-seven of those cases awarded punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 or greater. Thus, if a c. 151B violation is found, the punitive damages will likely be awarded in a very substantial amount.
3. When Punitive Damages
are Awarded in the Amount of $100,000 or Higher, There is a Great Likelihood
That Either the Award Will be Reduced, the Underlying Finding of Liability Will
be Reversed, or a New Trial Will be Ordered
Employment discrimination plaintiffs succeeding in obtaining large punitive damages awards at trial are having a hard time defending these awards at the post-trial and appellate levels.
In the context of six figure punitive damages, it appears that the jury is usually "wrong." Of the forty cases in which the trier of fact awarded punitive damages of $100,000 or greater, the amount was cut, limited by a damages cap, or the underlying finding was subject to reversal and/or remand, or the jury verdict was otherwise altered to the plaintiff's detriment in twenty-three cases. Thus, only XX.X% of those cases have so far been allowed to stand unaltered. Those statistics could get worse, as some of the successes are being challenged.
4. When Punitive Damages are Awarded in
an Amount Less Than $100,000, There is Only a Small Likelihood That Either the
Award Will be Reduced, the Underlying Finding of Liability Will be Reversed, or
a New Trial Will be Ordered
Of the thirty-one cases awarding less than $100,000 in punitive damages (or none), the awards and underlying judgments have so far been permitted to stand in twenty-five cases. Thus, when punitive damages are low or non-existent, the chance that the verdict will be left untouched rises to XX.X%.
5. Judicial
Hostility to Punitive Damages?
The bare statistics indicate that a case with a low punitive damages award stands a much greater likelihood of being affirmed than a case with a high award. Does this indicate a judicial intolerance of high punitive damages? Not necessarily.
It should be remembered that sometimes damage awards must be reduced based on grounds not relating to judicial discretion, such as application of the Title VII damages cap. Defendants have a greater incentive to vigorously appeal high awards. Moreover, very high awards may exceed Constitutional or statutory standards of fairness and due process. Therefore, it should be expected that cases with high punitive damages will be permitted to stand with less frequency than those with low damages.
On the other hand,
one must be concerned with a system of justice when the primary factfinder is deemed wrong in a large majority of a
certain category of cases. Jury
determinations are supposed to be sacrosanct, and subject to rare
interference. See Moose v. MIT,
43
The two possible areas of fault are as follows: [1] that juries are incapable of appropriately considering these types of cases, or [2] that judges are applying an overly heavy hand in reviewing such cases. Regardless of which type of fault is the controlling or greater culprit, each has very disturbing implications. They are at odds with our constitutional system of justice which holds the right to a jury trial as sacred.
Those believing
that a high award may prompt greater appellate scrutiny may want to consider
asking for less from the jury, in weaker cases.
Lawyers are encouraged to review the raw data below to form their own
opinions on the extent of judicial hostility toward punitive damages.
6. Despite the Fact that Six Figure
Punitive Awards are Usually Not Permitted to Stand, so Many Juries have Awarded
High Punitive Awards That it Should be Easier to Convince a Judge That a High Award
Properly Reflects the Judgment of the Community
Such
a large number of cases have been reported with substantial awards of punitive
damages that attorneys are now in a very strong position to argue that future
large verdicts are reasonable and properly reflect the appropriate common sense
judgment of the factfinder. Plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to uphold sizable
punitive damages should not ignore the cases that on first blush go against
their position, because the award has been reduced, remanded, or vacated.
6. Raw
Data Supporting Conclusions
|
Case |
Amount of Punitive Damages Awarded By Factfinder |
If Jury Verdict Was Altered by Court |
If Jury Verdict Was Left Undisturbed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards v. MBTA, C.A. No. 99-0458-F, |
$7,000,000 |
|
Case settled with post-trial motions pending |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifton v. MBTA, Consolidated Memorandum of Decision and Order on Post-Trial Motions, C.A. No. 95-2686-H, Suffolk, ss, Gants, J., February 3, 2000 (c. 151B race harassment case) |
$5,000,000 |
Remittitur granted in the amount of $500,000. Adjustment not accepted and on appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 206 (1st Cir. 1987) (Section 1981 race discrimination) |
$3,000,000 |
Award was deemed excessive and reduced to $300,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labonte v. Hutchins
& Wheeler, 424 |
$2,500,000 |
Remanded to Trial Court to analyze amount in light of due process principles. On remand, Trial Court remitted award to $900,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hill v. Belmont Springs, 31 M.L.W. 263 (Oct. 2002) (c. 151B handicap discrimination) |
$2,000,000 |
|
October 2002 jury verdict |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Boston Select Group v. DeMichele,
15 |
$1,500,000 |
|
October 2002 jury verdict, affirmed after post trial motions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$1,000,000 |
|
October 2002 jury verdict |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Handrahan v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 43 Mass. App. 13 (1997) (c. 151B handicap claim) |
$1,000,000 |
Trial Court found award excessive and reduced it to
$100,000; lower amount upheld by |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daigle v. Rudomin,
Memorandum and Order Pursuant to Rule |
$750,000 |
|
Appeals Court upheld award, despite closing argument requesting a “huge” award |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abramian v. President
& Fellows of Harvard College, 9 |
$750,000 for each of two counts |
Trial Court ordered new trial solely on issue of punitive damages, on grounds that jury instructions did not require the finding that Harvard’s conduct was outrageous. Moreover, Trial Court ruled that only a single punitive award would be permitted, and the two awards would not be cumulated. The SJC affirmed the requirement for a new trial on punitive damages and on the national origin discrimination claim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walsh v. Carney Hospital Corporation, Memorandum
and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or,
in the Alternative, for a New Trial or |
$650,000 |
|
Appeal pending |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romano v. U-Haul International, 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir. 2000) (Title VII and Maine Human Rights Act sex discrimination claim) |
$625,000 |
Reduced to $285,000 by District Court to comply with Title VII damages cap |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp., 415 Mass. 309 (1993) (c. 151B age claim) |
$600,000 |
Vacated because no punitive damages may be awarded in a c. 151B age discrimination claim, and because amendment providing for the damages is not retroactively applied |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hart v. City of Peabody, 5 |
$500,000 |
|
Unappealled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quint v. A.E. Stanley
Mfg. Co., 172 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) ( |
$420,000 |
reduced to $300,000 in light of statutory cap, even though court found the award proper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carey v. Mt. Desert Island Hospital, 156 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1998) (Title VII gender claim) |
$400,000 |
Reduced in light of statutory cap |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zimmerman v. Direct Federal Credit Union, 2000 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 17107 (D. Mass. |
$400,000 |
|
Affirmed by First Circuit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sampaio v. Agar Supply Company, Inc., Memorandum of Decision and Order of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and in the Alternative for a New Trial, C.A. No. 91-8389, Suffolk, ss., Barrett, J., August 12, 1993 (c. 151B age/national origin claims) |
$350,000 |
A new trial on liability and damages was ordered based in part on the assumption that the jury’s punitive damages award of $350,000 was based partly on prejudicial statements made by Plaintiff’s counsel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dalrymple v. Town of Winthrop, 50 Mass. App. 611 (2000) (c. 151B gender and retaliation claim) |
$300,000 |
|
Upheld on appeal where award was similar to the award of compensatory damages and jury instructions were proper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerr-Selgas v. American Airlines, Inc., 69 F.3d 1205, 1214-5 (1st Cir. 1995) (Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation) |
$300,000 |
Vacated because no compensatory or nominal damages were awarded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contardo v. Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 753 F.
Supp. 406 (D. |
$250,000 |
|
Damages awarded by Judge, not jury |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Babyak v. Smith College, 30 M.L.W. 3753, reverse discrimination gender claim (2001) |
$250,000 for gender claim, $250,000 for later retaliatory conduct |
|
Jury award, appeal contemplated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criado v. IBM Corp.,
145 F.3d 437, 440 (1st Cir. 1998) ( |
$250,000 |
With $200,000 compensatory damages awarded, punitive damages reduced in light of $300,000 damages cap |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcano-Rivera v.
Pueblo International, Inc., 232 F.3d 246 (1st Cir. 2000)
(handicap discrimination under |
$225,000, awarded by Judge, pursuant to Puerto Rico law requiring doubling of compensatory damages awarded by jury |
Judge would not permit jury to consider question of
punitive damages under |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sprague v. United Airlines, Inc., Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment, |
$200,000 |
|
Awarded by Judge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saltzberg v. Medical
Weight Loss Center, |
$200,000 |
|
Jury Verdict |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dartt v.
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 427 |
$175,000 |
Vacated because termination based on handicap was not an outrageous act warranting punitive damages |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nardone v. Patrick
Motor Sales, Inc., 1994 WL 902899 ( |
160,000 |
|
Jury verdict |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacCormack v. Boston Edison Co., 423 Mass. 652 (1996) (c. 151B retaliation) |
$150,000 |
Vacated because claim as whole was dismissed as lacking adequate supporting evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doty v. Sewall, 908 F.2d 1053, 1056, 1062 (1st Cir. 1990) (suit of union member against a union based on LMRDA violations) |
$150,000 |
|
Upheld |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izen v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., an unpublished opinion noted at 132 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1997) (c. 151B retaliation claim) |
$150,000 |
Vacated because Judge withheld constructive discharge question from the jury |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McMillan v. MSPCA, 140 F.3d 288, 307 (1st Cir. 1998) (c. 151B sex discrimination) |
$135,662 against employer and $171,200.00 against individual |
Vacated because salary disparity was not egregious violation warranting punitive damages |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bandera v. City of Quincy, C.A. No. 00-11375-MBB (c. 151B gender discrimination) (D. Mass. 2002) |
$135,000 |
|
Jury Verdict |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeMichele v. Guardsmark, Inc., Order, C.A. No. 90-10975, Tsoucalas, J., June 15, 1993 (c. 151B handicap discrimination claim) |
$125,000 |
Vacated because amendment authorizing punitive damages was not retroactive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 118 S. Ct. 966 (1998) (Section 1983 free speech claim) |
$120,000 against Mayor |
Vacated based on legislative immunity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belanger v. Saint-Gobain
Industrial Ceramics, Inc., 9 |
108,000 |
|
Two sexually harassing comments support award |
|
|
|
|
|