New Yorkers who win employment bias lawsuits are often seeing only a fraction of the money allotted to them by juries — thanks to judges slashing the amounts — according to state lawmakers who are zeroing in on a legislative fix.
The reductions stem from a New York state rule that requires judges to lower verdicts if they “deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation” in a procedure known as remittitur. Critics say it undermines victims’ ability to see justice through the court system and does little to discourage employers from changing harmful practices. State Sen. Andrew Gournardes is proposing legislation that would ensure those jury verdicts stand.
“What happens is you have this vicious downward circle cycle,” Gounardes said. “Once you start low-balling one victim, and every other case points to that same standard and then that’s how you kind of reduce and reduce and reduce till it becomes meaningless. So we want to try to stop that and change that.”
The bill currently making its way through the state Senate would only allow courts to lower awards in “exceptional circumstances which compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” Gounardes said it was written to more closely resemble surrounding states.
For example, in New Jersey, remittitur is considered a “remedy to correct a grossly disproportionate damages award, which, if left intact, would constitute a miscarriage of justice.” Meanwhile in New York, attorneys who represent employees say awards are routinely drastically cut.
Plaintiff Moises Mendez was awarded a total of $3 million in economic, punitive and emotional damages in 2010 after he won a race and disability lawsuit against Starwood Hotels Resorts Worldwide. A judge cut that down to $10,000.
In 2011, Aubrey Chisolm won a racial discrimination lawsuit against Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He was granted $1 million in punitive damages by a jury,…
Read the full article here
Leave a Reply