Don’t believe the hype — Valentine’s Day may be for lovers, but for employers, it’s only trouble. Indeed, back in 2011, I highlighted the perils of Valentine’s Day for employers recapping various cases in which Valentine’s Day played a central role. Given the day, I thought I would reprint it today as a reminder —
harassment
General Assembly To Consider Ban on NDAs
Led, in part, by a crusade from former Fox News hosts Gretchen Carlson and Julie Roginsky, who settled private cases with Fox News involving sexual harassment and signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), we’re likely to see a bill at the General Assembly this year to ban employers’ use of NDAs and non-disparagement agreements in discrimination complaints.…
NYC Bans Height and Weight Discrimination
A significant change has gone into effect New York City effective on November 22, 2023 with an amendment to the city’s Human Rights law.
The key focus of this amendment is the prohibition of discrimination based on an individual’s height and weight in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The law prohibits NYC employers — that…
An Employment Law Checklist for Your Holiday Parties
With Thanksgiving now well behind us and COVID something that feels more manageable than in past years (notice my use of “feels”), some companies are planning for their first holiday party in four years.
Of course, I’ve written about holiday parties before and much hasn’t changed. The biggest change from 2019 is that cannabis is…
There is No “Floor” for “Garden-Variety” Emotional Distress Arising from Discrimination Says Court
Suppose an employee or tenant is the victim of housing or employment discrimination/harassment; what is the value of the ordinary (or in the court’s words “garden variety”) emotional distress that person suffers as a result of such discrimination or harassment.
I’ve actually talked about this before; back in 2021, the Appellate Court was asked…
CHRO Stats Show Big Drop in Employment Discrimination Cases Filed
Whether you call this season “fall” or “pumpkin spice latte time”, I like to call it — “It’s CHRO Annual Report Season!”
Yes, I admit I’m a stat nerd when it comes to the CHRO Annual Report. If you’re new to this blog, the CHRO Annual Report provides all the statistics from the last fiscal…
CHRO vs. CHRO: How Much is “Garden Variety” Emotional Distress Really Worth
Today I want to talk about a housing discrimination claim. But wait! It has significant relevance to employment discrimination claims so bear with me for a second.
As an additional incentive, if you’ve been following the Marvel movies, this case will ALSO have elements of a multi-verse with multiple versions of the CHRO in play, so consider this case to be “Loki” for legal geeks. (If you don’t understand, your kids will.)
Ok, back to the law.
The story first starts in 2012 when the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld an award of $95,000 in noneconomic damages to an employee in an harassment claim, even though the employee did not offer any expert or medical testimony on the subject and provided very little to no evidence on it, according to the court’s opinion.
The case, Patino v. Birken Mfg, has often been cited for the proposition that noneconomic damages will not be overturned unless they are excessive or shocking. The Court’s decision cited several other cases to compare the verdicts in those cases with that one. These types of cases are also what is known as “garden variety” emotional distress damages.
Flash forward to 2015 and a case of housing discrimination filed at the CHRO. The condominium never appeared in the case to defend itself, which resulted in a default judgment. A hearing in damages was then held. At the hearing, the CHRO requested $75,000 in noneconomic damages on behalf of the individual. However, the referee awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. Victory and case closed, right?
Nope. Then things get interesting. The CHRO appealed the decision of its own referee, contending the damages were insufficient. The Superior Court remanded the case for further decision and on remand, the referee did not change the damages award. The CHRO then appealed again to the Superior Court which affirmed the decision.
Which led to an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate with the CHRO representing the CHRO (Plaintiff) and the CHRO representing the CHRO (Defendant).
(Don’t try to think too much about it; your head will spin but you can read footnote 1 for an explanation where the court notes “The present case thus presents us with the unusual situation of both parties on appeal advocating for the same
interests; specifically, asking this court to reverse the decision of the Superior Court, vacate the referee’s award of damages and remand the case for a new calculation of damages.”)
For good measure, the State of Connecticut filed a brief as amicus curiae. (That’s a lot of tax dollars hard at work, as they say.)
On appeal in CHRO v. Cantillon, both versions of the CHRO asked the court to reverse, claiming a misapplication of prior case law. Both argued that Patino stands for the proposition that in “garden variety” emotional distress claims, “there is a presumptive monetary range of damages between $30,000 and $125,000.”Continue Reading CHRO vs. CHRO: How Much is “Garden Variety” Emotional Distress Really Worth
Where Have All the Discrimination Lawsuits Gone?
Remember 2010?
Those were the days of Lady Gaga’s “Meat Dress”. You could also play “Angry Birds” on your new smartphone.
And discrimination complaints to the EEOC were about at their all-time high.
But over the last few years — and in particular, last year — discrimination and retaliation claims have been down.
A LOT.…
Tricks, Not Treats: When Bad Things Happen on Halloween (Employer Edition)
Oh Halloween.
You have a tendency to make employment lawyers busy.
For instance, there was that time when an employee made comments about a co-worker “taking a girlfriend dressed as a 747 to a Halloween party and bringing her in for a landing” when the co-worker was gay and had no girlfriend. Harassment? (Hansen…
No Such Thing as a Small Victory: $1 for the Plaintiff, $95,000 for his Attorney
Suppose a national origin discrimination case goes to a jury trial (I know we’re not having jury trials during this pandemic, but humor me).
The jury comes back with a verdict finding for the Plaintiff-employee. But it awards the Plaintiff just one dollar. Is this a victory?
Before you answer, you should know this happens…