EEOC demonstrates modest settlement value of many harassment cases
February 27, 2005One would expect that the EEOC, which only chooses to litigate a limited number of cases each year, would choose those cases carefully.
One would further expect that the EEOC would have access to superior information on the settlement value of discrimination cases.
For these reasons, I always look at announced EEOC settlements as a guide to settlement value, and suggest that potential plaintiffs and their lawyers do so as well.
Here’s an example suggesting that at least some sexual harassment cases are only worth relatively modest settlements. Granted, the news story provides few details.
It would be easy to speculate that there was a glaring problem with the plaintiffs’ case, such as failure to properly complain to management. But then why did the EEOC take the case?
Guess how much/little I’m talking about? The answer’s in this AP story from Charleston, S.C.:
“Hoover car dealers agree to pay $86,500 to settle harassment suit”
The lawsuit claimed four female employees were subjected to a sexually hostile working environment at an automobile dealership, when “car salesmen told sexual jokes and inappropriately touched the employees, some of whom were teenagers at the time.”
The $86,000 settlement will be split four ways among the plaintiffs, which if equally divided gives them each $21,500.
They can buy a car from the dealership if they want, but not a very upscale one.
Some may question my calling this a modest settlement. All I can say is that it is modest by comparison to many sexual harassment cases involving physical touching, in which settlement demands often start well into six figures. Many plaintiffs seem to be overly influenced by the relatively rare, but well-publicized multimillion dollar verdicts. Cases like this one — and also lots of summary judgments and defense verdicts — are the other side of the story.
Related Posts
Many employment cases do not bring big bucks, despite publicity given the million-dollar ones
There are limits to "Have it Your Way" at Burger King; $400,000 paid to settle teen sexual harassment case
The long and short of the "lawsuit lottery" in sexual harassment cases
Two other attorneys’ lessons from the Bill O’Reilly harassment case
News on Wal-Mart class action — possible settlement nears?
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.
Comment by katall
Now, come on. Your comments are ridiculous.
The lesson to be learned is not that the vast majority of cases merit “modest damages”. To the contrary, the lesson to be learned is that the EEOC will not stand for blatant harassment in the workplace.
The EEOC, as an institution, could not care a wit about damages. The EEOC cares about setting examples. This case sets an example. The EEOC is happy.
The employees get $20k each. Not bad, but, perhaps they could have gotten more. On the other hand, if they sued on their own, they may have gotten nothing. They may have gotten millions, who knows?
You should be warning companies that they have to take action to prevent harassment. $84,000, while not millions, is not chump change.
Comment by George
If the EEOC cares about setting examples, what kind of example do they set by not caring a whit about damages? Of course they care about damages.
Of course companies have to take action to prevent harassment. If my post suggested otherwise, such implication was not intended.
That said, harassment, or allegations of it, will still occur at predictable — if lower — rates, despite employers’ best efforts.
I speak from the perspective of having seen too many plaintiffs and their lawyers overvalue these cases. How do you know what a case is worth? I suggest EEOC settlements, which are regularly publicized, are one place to look.
Very little detail has been provided about this case. It is very true that while EEOC likes big, splashy cases, it also will take smaller, apparently more ordinary cases like this one. I suspect it does so when the facts are extremely bad for the employer — most likely complete failure to respond to repeated employee complaints about severe harassment, or to even have a harassment policy in place.
So my assumption is that this was quite a strong case. Which makes the damages, while certainly not chump change, underwhelming to a lawyer used to seeing single plaintiffs demanding hundreds of thousands in fairly weak cases facing pretty good odds of summary judgment in favor of the employer (meaning they would recover goose eggs).
Comment by Anonymous
I’m a disabled veteran, working for the dept of veterans affairs. An angry administrator threw a noose at me in a conference room which was witnessed by her subordinates.
During mediation she admitted what she did. In depositions she denies all. What are my chances of imposing Manifest Injustice to get the mediators to testify?