"This & That" Tuesday: Punitive Awards, Disability and Religious Discrimination

 

Here is the latest issue of “This & That” Tuesday. I hope you find it to be informative and useful.

 

Announcements

You can always check out my website for upcoming speaking engagements that are guaranteed to be of value to business owners or for a list of topics that I can speak on at Chambers, Clubs, Business Associations, etc. More details about the events, topics and Human Resources 4U, in general, can be found on my website.

 

Event

August 6, Sierra Madre, “The Big Seven Employment Trouble Spots” Click here for more information.

$1 in damages….$125,000 Punitive Award!

Punitive damages can be unconstitutional when the punishment does not fit the "crime" (or liability).  The Supreme Court noted a long time ago that punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages.  There is case law in which courts held that punitive damages in many cases should not exceed a 1:1 ratio, usually should not exceed 3:1 and pretty much never should exceed 9:1. 

 

Here's a case that apparently is an exception to the rule. This case was about how a court reaches a proper award of punitive damages when there are virtually no compensatory damages ($1.00 to be exact).  

 

Angela Aguilar sued ASARCO LLC, a mining company, for sexual harassment.  The allegations included sexual solicitations and a vandalized portable toilet at the work site. Supervision and HR were generally unsympathetic and took practically no action in response to her complaints.  One HR person told her she had to "handle" the 350 lb. would-be paramour herself.  

 

Management did not take action on the basis of another supervisor's rude and obnoxious behavior towards her, apparently contending he was an "equal opportunity a*****" (to use the official employment law legal jargon).  That argument rarely works.

 

After trial, a jury found in favor of Aguilar on the sexual harassment claim, but not on her constructive termination based claims.  But the jury awarded just $1.00 in damages, apparently believing that although the conduct towards Aguilar was harassment, she suffered no actual harm. The jury, though, decided to punish ASARCO, probably for its less than stellar handling of Aguilar's complaints, and awarded punitive damages of over $800,000. 

 

Under federal law, the maximum punitive damages award on a Title VII claim is $300,000. So, on ASARCO's motion for new trial, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award accordingly.    

 

ASARCO appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that an award of $300,000 was way too high when the jury awarded $1.00.  The Court of Appeals did not ignore the ratio. Yet, the Court of Appeals found a way to uphold a substantial punitive damages award anyway:  At a ratio of 125,000:1.  Here's how they got there: 

 

Given ASARCO’s highly reprehensible conduct and the presence of a comparable civil penalty in the form of the Title VII damages cap, we conclude that the Constitution does not bar the imposition of a substantial punitive award in this case. Although we think a ratio higher than 2,500 to one is called for by ASARCO’s conduct, the $300,000 awarded was nonetheless excessive. As we indicated above, no court in a discrimination case has ever upheld a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 125,000 to 1.  

 

Since nothing compels a particular dollar figure, we (the court) conclude that the highest punitive award supportable under due process is $125,000, in accord with the highest ratio we could locate among discrimination cases. We think this is the highest award which maintains the required “reasonable relationship” between compensatory and punitive damages. This award is nonetheless on the order of the damages cap in Title VII and proportional to the reprehensibility of ASARCO’s conduct. 

 

Toys"R"Us Will Pay $35,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination

Toys"R"Us, Inc., one of the world's largest retailers of toys and juvenile products, will pay $35,000 and provide significant equitable relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit.  

 

According to the EEOC's suit, after Shakirra Thomas applied for a team member position at the retailer's Columbia, Md., store, Toys"R"Us contacted her and requested that she attend a group interview.  The EEOC said that when Thomas's mother told Toys"R"Us that Thomas was deaf and requested that it provide an interpreter for the interview, the retailer said that Thomas would have to provide her own interpreter for the interview.  Thomas communicates by using American Sign Language, reading lips and through the written word.   

 

According to the lawsuit, Thomas's mother interpreted for her during a group interview, but the retailer refused to hire Thomas despite her qualifications and ability to perform the team member position, with or without a reasonable accommodation. 

 

Disability discrimination in employment violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which provides that employers provide reasonable accommodations where necessary to individuals with disabilities, including to applicants. "This settlement should remind all employers that, absent an undue hardship, the ADA requires providing a reasonable accommodation to job applicants and employees who request one," said EEOC District Director. 

 

In addition to the $35,000 in monetary relief to Thomas, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Toys"R"Us from future discrimination on the basis of disability.  Toys"R"Us will provide training on the ADA, including non-discriminatory interviewing and hiring practices, to managers and supervisors at its Columbia store and at 24 other stores in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  The retailer will also post a notice regarding the resolution of the lawsuit.   

 

According to its website Toys"R"Us, Inc. employs approximately 70,000 people worldwide.

 

UPS to Pay $70,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), the world's largest package delivery company, agreed to pay $70,000 and furnish significant injunctive relief to settle a religious accommodation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. 

 

According to the EEOC, the claimant was a Jehovah's Witness whom UPS hired as a part-time loader at its Saddle Brook, N.J. facility in April 2011. Shortly after his new-employee orientation with UPS the claimant made a request for a schedule change in order to attend an annual religious service. His supervisor denied the request for a schedule accommodation and the claimant was terminated from his job just a few days later. The EEOC contended that the refusal to grant the request for a schedule accommodation and the decision to terminate the claimant constituted religious discrimination. The lawsuit further alleged that after the claimant was terminated from his job, he was placed on a company-wide "do not rehire" list and was unable to get another job with UPS after re-applying elsewhere.   

 

The EEOC charged that the hiring manager's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes religious discrimination in the workplace illegal and requires reasonable accommodations for religious practices, absent an undue hardship to the employer.  

 

In addition to paying the $70,000 in damages to the claimant, UPS is enjoined discriminating against employees based on their religion, or from retaliating against employees for opposing such discrimination. The company has agreed to post its policy outlining the procedure for requesting a religious accommodation in conspicuous places throughout its Saddle Brook location, conduct anti-discrimination training for managers and supervisors, and discuss the policy with employees at the location during pre-work meetings. 

 

The EEOC stated "Religious discrimination in the workplace cannot be tolerated. Businesses have a clear legal duty under federal law to handle requests for religious accommodations from their employees with due amounts of consideration."

 

Factoids

• Only 1% of employees think they will be disabled for 3 months or longer
  
• But over 25% of today’s 20 year olds will become disabled

 

Top 3 causes of LTD

• 29% Musculoskeletal/connective tissue
• 15% cancer
• 11% injury

 

Quotes

“People will generally accept facts as truth, only if the facts agree with what they already believe.”

~Andy Rooney~