Huge Jury Award in Pregnancy Discrimination Case – But Will It Stick?

01 December 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Causing waves to travel through the legal community, a California jury has recently ordered a woman’s former employer to pay her $186 million in punitive damages. In the case, the woman claimed that she had been demoted after becoming pregnant and was terminated after she complained about gender and pregnancy discrimination. The jury set punitive damages at more than 200 times the amount of her actual economic losses, found to be $800,000.

There are several remarkable aspects about this verdict. First, it shows that juries are increasingly willing to punish employers whom they believe have mistreated women because of pregnancy and/or childbirth. Second, the jury must have truly intended to punish this employer, because the award was twenty million dollars higher than what even her own attorney asked for. Third, experience tells us it is most unlikely that the former employee will receive anywhere near the punitive damages amount awarded.

In 1978, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law clarified that the terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” includes “pregnancy childbirth, or related medical conditions” and that women affected by such conditions must be treated the same as other persons not so affected. Recently, we have seen a sharp increase in the number of such cases and in the number of multi-million dollar jury verdicts in favor of women who have been found to be victims of such discrimination.

However, as eye-catching as such awards are, very high amounts rarely survive appeal or other post-verdict proceedings, especially when the punitive portion is significantly disproportionate to the actual damages.

Punitive damages are intended to punish a defendant for outrageous misconduct and deter similar future misconduct. However, the appellate courts have reined in juries who have, in their view, awarded excessive punitive damages. Although in reviewing the fairness of an award, a number of factors are considered, in general the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the ratio of punitive to actual damages must be a single digit (i.e. no more than 9). A ratio of 200+ is considerably above that marker and seems vulnerable, to say the least. Thus, though large jury verdicts temporarily grab headlines and cause shock waves among employers, more modest out-of-court settlements are generally the final result.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ