Supreme Court Rejects Limits on Awards:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that victims of on-the-job mistreatment may collect unlimited cash awards to make up for when they would have earned if they had been treated fairly and stayed on the job.
According to experts, this ruling was a victory for employee rights and civil liberties groups, and a setback for employers who hoped to limit jury awards that can often run into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.
The court ruled in the case of a woman whose male co-workers at a Du Pont plant in Tennessee harassed and demeaned her, including refusing to associate with her after she was chosen to speak to girls visiting the plant for Take Your Daughters to Work Day.
Lower courts had ruled for Sharon Pollard and agreed she deserved to be compensated for money she would have made if working conditions had not forced her to leave her job, a circumstance known as "constructive discharge." However, the lower courts also ruled that the 1991 Civil Rights Act limited her compensation to $300,000, instead of the $800,000 she asked for.
Other federal courts have not applied the 1991 limit to the "front pay" that Pollard sought, and in its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the limit is unjustified.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said Congress left the door open for front pay awards by authorizing "such affirmative action as may be appropriate." Further, Thomas wrote, unlimited front pay should be available both to workers who stay on the job as well as those who leave.
"I would hope that employers would take from this 8-0 decision the clear message that they have nothing to gain by making life unpleasant and difficult for those whom they have discriminated against," said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, on of more than a dozen organizations that signed friend-of -the-court briefs supporting Pollard.
Pollard's lawyer, Kathleen Caldwell, said "It's a strong, strong decision which is going to stand the test of time." She said Pollard "has been laughing and crying all at the same time."
The case, Pollard v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., began in 1987, when Pollard, who worked at DuPont's chemical factory in Western Tennessee for 10 years, was promoted to operator in charge of a ship in the peroxide area. Following her promotion, one male worker put a Bible on her desk open to the passage: "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. She must be silent."
Other male workers in her area publicly called women "heifers" and other vulgar names. The men used staff meetings to voice their opinions that women were not capable of doing anything right.
In addition, male employees set off false alarms which required that Pollard rush around the peroxide area checking the pipes and valves in search of nonexistent problems. According to the suit, male workers also moved the vats of peroxide off the ventilators before it was time, so that the damaged product would appear to be Pollard's fault.
No one in the peroxide area was disciplined for the harassment, despite Pollard's complaints to her supervisor and other higher-ups at the company. Finally, in July 1995, the harassment became too much, and DuPont's psychologist advised her to take medical leave.
The company asked Pollard to return to work six months later, but refused to move her to a different shift or factory area. She then quit and sued.
While DuPont denied it knew about the harassment, the trial judge in federal district court said the facts showed "a case of wretched indifference to an employee who was slowing drowning in an environment that was completely unacceptable, while her employer sat by and watched." A federal circuit court agreed with the lower court's decision, calling the discrimination "flagrant."
The trial court awarded Pollard $300,000 in compensatory damages in payment for the pain, suffering and humiliation she had endured. Pollard, however, also asked for $500,000 for "front pay," with her attorneys arguing that the environment at DuPont was too unfriendly for her to return to work.
Front pay is awarded instead of reinstatement to the job when an employee cannot return to a job because, for example, the work environment is hostile or the job no longer exists. Both the trial court and the federal appeals court in this case denied the front pay award, ruling that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 imposed a $300,000 cap on compensatory damages and that front pay was meant to be included under the cap.
The Supreme Court's June 4 decision reversed that decision with Justice Thomas explaining that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 clearly was intended to expand the remedies available to victims of workplace sexual harassment, not to limit front pay, which was routinely awarded before the 1991 law was passed.
Before 1991, victims of sexual harassment were entitled to only what was called equitable relief, i.e. reinstatement to the job or front pay if reinstatement wasn't possible, as well as medical bills and lost wages prior to any court decision.
In 1990 and 1991, activists pushed for a new federal civil rights bill to guarantee workers suing for sex discrimination the same rights that people suing for racial and ethnic discrimination enjoyed: a jury trial and compensatory and punitive damages. The reasoning was that increasing damages would further deter employers from knowingly tolerating discrimination.
To pass the bill, Congress agreed on a compromise--a $300,000 cap on compensatory and punitive damages for larger companies with lower caps for smaller companies. Many civil rights groups felt that capped damages were better than none.
Since 1991, different federal appeals courts have interpreted the Civil Rights Act differently, ruling in opposite ways on whether front pay was included under the cap. This ruling now ends that confusion.
