Plaintiffs in discrimination cases are always gunning for the multimillion-dollar punitive damages award. Such awards are relatively rare. In some cases, judges may find triable issues, yet not submit punitives. In others, punitives may be awarded, yet not in such high dollar amounts.
Some fact patterns are more likely than others to lead to submission and awarding of punitives. The following case illustrates a couple of these.
The Detroit Free Press reports: “Jury awards Allen Park officer $4 million in suit” (by Cecil Angel)
A federal court jury in Detroit awarded an Allen Park police officer more than $4 million on Wednesday after deciding the city and its police chief had discriminated against him because he is a Mexican American. . .
“He was not being treated like any other officer in the city,” said Barry Seifman, who, along with Raymond Guzall, represented Madrigal. “The city had been given notice and did nothing.”
To prove discrimination in many situations, such evidence of employer indifference is not necessary (although it often is necessary in a harassment case). However, such indifference in the face of knowledge of improper conduct, if proven, would strongly support punitive damages.
When Madrigal began work in Allen Park as a patrolman, he became the second person of color on the force.
Introduction of a small number of women into a male-dominated workplace, or small number of racial minorities into all-white workplace is always a situation to monitor closely for possible hostile environment and disparate treatment.
[A]lmost immediately after he started, he said [the police chief]routinely disciplined him for incidents that barely registered a glance for other officers.
Evidence of such disparate treatment is one of the main ways to prove the discrimination case on the merits. Arguably, if the disparity is extreme and repeated, it may also evidence the type of culpability supporting punitive damages.
Some helpful law limiting punitive damage exposure:
Title VII caps compensatory and punitive damages.
Supreme Court decisions impose constitutional limts on such damages, including a rough proportionality test comparing punitives to actual damages. This could be a problem for the plaintiff in the case discussed above.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
Subscribe by RSS
Subscribe by Email
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment