|
|
|
|
D.C. CIRCUIT ANNOUNCES RESTRICTIVE STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARDS UNDER TITLE VII The 1991 amendments to Title VII's anti-discrimination provisions for the first time provided for the award of punitive damages against employers under that statute. However, the standard for the award of those damages had not been articulated in the District of Columbia until this year. In the case of Kolstad v. American Dental Association, No. 96-7030 (reported in The Daily Washington Law Reporter, Vol. 126, No. 106, page 1053, June 3, 1998), the en banc District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals found that punitive damages under Title VII can only be awarded by a jury on a showing of "egregious conduct". While some other circuits have adopted a much more lenient standard, requiring only a showing of mere intent to discriminate, the D.C. Circuit rejected such an approach. The allegations in the Kolstad case, that sexually offensive remarks were made in the plaintiff's presence, were insufficient to allow the jury to award punitive damages. However, it should be noted that the standard for the award of punitive damages under the District of Columbia's Human Rights Act is not as stringent. In a recent decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, DAKA, Inc. v. Breiner, D.C. App. No. 95-CV-441 (reported in The Daily Washington Law Reporter, Vol. 126, No. 103, page 1025, May 29, 1998), the jury's award of punitive damages was upheld based on age-based derogatory statements made to an older employee. |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
