|
|
|
|
The Court affirmed a $300,000 jury verdict in plaintiff’s sex discrimination case brought under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§1-2501 et seq. (1992). The plaintiff was originally hired as a staff writer and photographer for the UMWA. She was also active in the Coal Employment Project (CEP), an organization devoted to the interests of female coal miners. CEP’s 1994 conference was scheduled to be held in Evansville, Indiana, in June, 1994, at a hotel called the Executive Inn. Plaintiff played no role in the organization of the conference, or the selection of the hotel, but in October, 1993 informed a UMWA executive of the details. The executive became upset because the hotel was owned by a man who had owned nonunion mines, which that executive had tried and failed to unionize about 15 years earlier. As a consequence, the CEP conference site was switched to another city. That same month, the UMWA executive announced to plaintiff’s supervisor that he was going to fire her. The next month, plaintiff’s name was included on a list of ten staff and wage employees who were to be terminated. Plaintiff was the only female on the list. She was also the only one on the list who had never been informed of any shortcomings. This action took place two days after plaintiff’s immediately supervisor had indicated that staff would receive a raise. Plaintiff was told her termination was due to finances and efficiency, but a less qualified male replacement was hired within two months. Later, she fruitlessly applied for other open positions in her field with the UMWA. A year later, plaintiff filed her complaint alleging sex discrimination. On appeal, the Court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict of discrimination. Among her damages, the plaintiff was awarded "front pay". The UMWA challenged that award, in part on the basis that the trial court had no basis for assuming that plaintiff would have been relegated to lower paying jobs, or would have remained at UMWA for the remainder of her worklife. The Court rejected that argument. The Court pointed out that plaintiff had testified that she planned to work until age 62, and that her current income was less than what she would have gotten if she had not been terminated. She testified as to her desire for a career in the coal mining industry. Thus there was enough evidence to support the testimony of her economic expert. Dr. Richard Lurito. The Court indicated that a party is not required to prove damages to a degree of mathematical certainty. The UMWA also challenged the award of $150,000 in punitive damages, on the grounds that it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence of malice. The Court agreed, and reversed the award of punitive damages. "[T]he record before us lacks any showing, by clear and convincing evidence, of malicious, wanton, reckless or willful actions on the part of UMWA." |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
