Court Upholds $1.9 Million Dollar Verdict In Gender Discrimination Case Against Wal-Mart

Posted on December 1, 2009 by Ellen Simon

Female Pharmacist Wins Appeal Including Punitive Damages and Huge Front Pay Award

It’s one thing to prove discrimination. It’s an altogether different thing to prove damages which occurred as a result of it.

In the recently published gender discrimination case of Haddad v Wal-Mart Stores Inc,*, the  Supreme Court Court ("SJC") of Massachusetts affirmed a jury verdict which included $733,000 for 19 years of front pay (future economic loss) and $1 million dollars in punitive damages – and that’s big news.

What Happened In The Case

Cynthia Haddad worked as a pharmacist at Wal-Mart for ten years (seven of those in the Pittsfield, Massachusetts store) mostly as a staff pharmacist..Throughout her time at Wal-Mart, she received excellent evaluations.  

Towards the end of her employment, Haddad accepted the position of pharmacy manager.

During that time, she received less pay than any male pharmacy manager which she consistently complained about.

On April 14th, 2004, Haddad was questioned by three Wal-Mart managers about abut two fraudulent prescriptions.

One of the prescriptions was written in 2002 while Haddad was on duty, and another was written in 2004 while a male pharmacist was on duty.

Haddad told the managers that she did not know anything about the fraudulent prescriptions.

She did admit that the 2002 fraudulent prescription could have been written when she briefly left the pharmacy area to buy a soda at a nearby counter, or when she was in the restroom, eating lunch, or talking to customers.

Haddad’s employment was terminated that same day.

She was told that the reason for her termination was based on her statement during the interview that she failed to secure the pharmacy and left Baran (the technician) unattended in the pharmacy area. Baran, who admitted that she falsified the prescription,was also terminated.

The other pharmacist involved -- Richard Blackbird -- was on duty the day the fraudulent 2004 prescription was written. That prescription contained his initials.

In a clear case of unequal treatment, neither Blackbird, nor any other pharmacist was questioned about or disciplined for the 2004 fraudulent prescription.

In stark contract to the treatment Haddad received,  Blackbird was appointed to be pharmacy manager at the time of Haddad's departure.

In addition, Blackbird testified that he commonly left the pharmacy area unsecured to talk to a customer, go the restroom, or get a snack – and that he was unaware of any policy prohibiting this practice.

Haddad filed a lawsuit alleging unequal compensation and termination of employment in violation of Massachusetts laws against discrimination. ( M.G.L. c. 151B, s.4) The complaint also stated a claim for defamation.

The jury found in Haddad’s favor and awarded $922,774 in compensatory damages which included:

  • $17,700 in special damages
  • $125,000 for emotional distress
  • $95,000 in back pay
  • $733,000 in front pay

The jury also awarded $1 million dollars in punitive damages.

The Appeal

Wal-Mart appealed claiming a number of errors.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Wal-Mart claimed that Haddad did not introduce enough evidence to prove discrimination. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed. It held that there was sufficient proof to support the verdict including evidence that:

  • Wal-Mart’s proffered reasons for terminating Haddad were false
  • Similarly situated male employees were treated differently than Haddad for similar infractions of the same policy
  • Other incidents occurred  in which male pharmacists were not disciplined for far more serious infractions, ie. one pharmacist was caught writing prescriptions and taking drugs for himself and was not fired
  • Wal-Mart failed to follow its progressive discipline policy

Front Pay

The jury awarded the plaintiff nineteen years of future economic loss which consisted of the difference in pay and benefits that Haddad would have earned at Wal-Mart compared to the pay and benefits she earned at the job she held at the time of trial.

Nineteen years of compensation represented Haddad’s loss of earning through age 65.

Wal-Mart contended that the front pay award was excessive and speculative. The Court disagreed:

While the award of $733,307 represents a significant dollar figure for front, pay, the evidence supported such an award ....

The plaintiff testified to her difficulty in obtaining a new job. There was evidence that Wal-Mart’s allegations concerning her alleged responsibility for drug losses became generally known....

[T]he award of lost income of nineteen years is consistent with the plaintiff’s anticipated retirement age of sixty-five.

Based on the plaintiff’s ten-year tenure at Wal-Mart, her testimony that she had planned to continue working at Wal-Mart for the remainder of her career, and the limited number of pharmacies in the area around Pittsfield, the jury permissibly could have concluded that an award of nineteen years was appropriate.

The Court discussed other cases (both state and federal) in which employees were awarded economic loss for long periods of time into the future – particularly where the “circumstances indicated that plaintiffs would have difficulty obtaining comparable employment.”

It’s a very helpful opinion for plaintiffs and their lawyers on the issue of damages for future economic loss in wrongful discharge cases

Punitive Damages

It’s not often that we see cases in which an award of punitive damages is affirmed on appeal.

To sustain the award of punitive damages in this case, Haddad had to prove that the defendant’s act "was outrageous, egregious, evil in motive, or undertaken with reckless indifference to the rights of others."

Some of the evidence which the SJC of Massachusetts relied upon to support the award included proof that:

  • Wal-Mart was aware that gender discrimination was not illegal
  • Wal-Mart refused to pay Haddad the hourly rate it paid male pharmacy managers
  • Wal-Mart fired a ten-year employee for a single infraction after a sham investigation
  • Male pharmacists were not disciplined for similar or far more serious infractions

It wrote:

The jury was warranted in concluding that Wal-Mart’s pattern of unequal treatment of male and female pharmacists was outrageous and reprehensible.

Lessons To Be Learned

There is no doubt that in today’s economic climate the chances of finding comparable employment after a discharge are slim. What this means is that when employees unlawfully lose their jobs, and prove it, it’s likely that we will see larger and larger verdicts just like this one. It’s an important case both for its content and as a harbinger of what’s to come.

* Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson Reuters

 Images:

63.135.122.65/bergdahlphoto/Wal-Mart

www.a-fib.com/images
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Big Settlements InTwo Male Sex Discrimination Cases

Posted on November 15, 2009 by Ellen Simon

Sex Discrimination Against Men Violates Title VII

It’s not often that you see cases involving discrimination against men, but in the last few weeks the EEOC has reported two noteworthy settlements.

The Sex Discrimination Case Against Lawry’s

In early November, the EEOC announced a $1,025,000 settlement of a class action lawsuit against Lawry’s Restaurants Inc., which operates steak houses in Las Vegas, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and Corona del Mar, California. 

In the lawsuit, the EEOC charged Lawry’s with maintaining a longstanding company wide policy of hiring only women for server positions.

The policy, which has been in place since 1938, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination because of sex.

Lawry’s claimed that the policy was based on long standing tradition. The EEOC found that the policy adversely affected a class of men on the basis of sex.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the case in early November. Under the consent decree Lawry’s agreed to:

  • change its practice and actively promote the hiring of men into server positions
  • provide monetary relief including a class fund of $500,000
  • pay over $300,000 to initiate an advertising campaign regarding the hiring of food servers
  • pay $225,000 for training its employees on compliance with Title VII and related laws
  • take additional steps to insure compliance with Title VII and the decree

In its announcement of the settlement, Olophious E. Perry, who managed the EEOC investigation said:

The EEOC will never condone discrimination in the name of so-called tradition. Every individual deserves a fair chance to obtain a job based on their talent and qualifications, regardless of gender.

It seems to me that there are lots of restaurants out there that still have male only, or female only servers. This case makes it clear that this is one "tradition" that has seen its day.

Cheesecake Factory Settles Case Of Male On Male Sexual Harassment 

The EEOC announced this week that Cheesecake Factory, Inc, a nationwide restaurant chain, will  pay $345,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit involving six male employees who were subjected to repeated sexual harassment at the company’s Chandler Mall location outside of Phoenix.

The complaint charged that the restaurant knew about and tolerated repeated sexual assaults against six male employees by a group of kitchen staffers.

The evidence included abuse involving the harassers:

  • directly touching the victims’ genitals
  • making sexually charged remarks
  • grinding their genitals against them
  • forcing victims into repeated episodes of simulated rape

According to the EEOC, managers witnessed employees dragging their victims kicking and screaming into the refrigerator. Victims’ complaints  were made to virtually every manager in the restaurant but the conduct never stopped. Eventually the police were called and an EEOC charge was filed.

Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Phoenix office had this to say:

The evidence was clear, and everyone knew about it. Behind the lavish décor that the company boasts on its web site was a horribly dysfunctional workplace where male workers lived in fear.

I would like to think that this situation is unusual, but the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office’s press release points out that it's currently prosecuting a similar case against Fleming’s Prime Steak House.

What’s with these restaurants?

Lessons To Be Learned

When most of us think about sex discrimination, we think about discrimination against women, and that’s certainly what was contemplated when the “because of sex” language was added to Title VII.

(Interestingly, the addition of "sex" by a southern congressman to Title VII in 1964  was seen by most as a cynical attempt to torpedo the bill which was primarily targeted to address race discrimination)

Likewise, when most of us think about sexual harassment, we think of men as the harassers and women as the victims.

(Not so, said the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,Inc in 1998; for more on this topic, see my article: What's Going On With Male On Male Sexual Harassment )

These recent EEOC cases draw attention to the fact that men can be victims of gender discrimination as well as outrageous sexual harassment.  Both forms of discrimination are against the law and can lead to serious consequences for all involved.

Images:  www.foodgps.com

www.family-vacation-getaways
Tags: , , , , , ,

Few Women Law Partners Comes As No Suprise

Posted on March 5, 2009 by Ellen Simon

It's very well known and often bragged about that over 50% of law school graduates are women. So what's the problem with women in the legal profession?

The problem reported last week is that while women represent over 50% of those graduating from law school, they made up only 28% of those granted partnership at the 85 major law U.S. law firms according to a  new study published by the Project for Attorney Retention at the Hastings College of Law.

The disparity between the number of female law school graduates and female partners is quite remarkable. And it's not because the women are less intelligent or capable than their male counterparts. As cynical as I may be, I don't think anyone would even argue that.

While few want to come out and accuse the legal profession of  gender discrimination,  I have no problem doing so. (Of course, not every firm, not every lawyer)  It's all over the legal profession -- wage discrimination, lack of promotional opportunity, sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, stereotyping, including a particularly horrible record  for women of color. It's all there, and it occurs for many reasons.

We all know that many law firms have a hard time accommodating the needs of working wives and mothers.  While firms are certainly much better than they were twenty-five or thirty years ago about flexible schedules and part-time work, they still have a long way to go.

The Amercian Bar Association's (ABA) Commission on Women in the Profession studies this subject and published it's findings in 1988, 1995, and 2003. The contents are neither encouraging nor surprising. The last report notes:

Current data indicates that more and more firms are allowing part-time schedules, but women testifying at the the 2003 hearings still reported that choosing the part-time option posed professional risks.  A partner at a large national law firm reported a consensus at her firm that the part-time policy is simply 'words on a piece of paper''. . .[Y]our commitment to the firm is still questioned once you have decided to go on a reduced hours schedule.

In addition, women who have obligations to their families are eliminated from mentoring and networking opportunities with clients.  Often times even single women are eliminated from these events -- the golf game, the baseball game, the hunting trip -- simply because they are women.  If you don't  meet and interact with the clients, you don't get the business.  If you don't get the business, you don't produce the revenue and you don't make partner. It's really pretty straightforward.

There's also the plain old fashioned gender bias that is rampant in law firms. Many men believe that women should be home with their children and not working at all or don't have the appropriate composition to practice law. The fact that these views are held by lawyers, and that this attitude is illegal when acted upon in the workplace, does not seem to prevent many partners from discriminating against the women in their firms in a variety of ways.

The latest  ABA report on this subject included the following:

The 1995 report noted that '[b]oth men and women report that women lawyers are viewed as insufficiently aggressive, uncomfortably forthright, too emotional, or not as serious as men about their careers.  When women opt for family leave or report sexual harassment, these stereotypes are reinforced.'

In 2003, there was evidence that those stereotypes have not dissipated .....

One can hardly go a week without reading an article about a law firm being sued for or settling, or  losing  some kind of discrimination lawsuit.   It's not just because law firms are easy targets.  They really do discriminate against their lawyers at an extraordinary rate.

The fact is that many women simply leave the profession and won't sue.  I have had dozens of calls through the years from women who were discriminated against and sexually harassed at their firms.  Without exception, each decided not to sue for fear that they would never find another job.

So while it's better than it was, we are not nearly where we should be in our profession in terms of providing equal opportunity in the workplace. Wouldn't it be nice if we were at the forefront, instead of the rear, on this issue?

image:http://nylawblog.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Firing Because of Abortion is Illegal Gender Discrimination

Posted on January 12, 2009 by Ellen Simon

What happens when a woman gets fired because she has an abortion? The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus decided that the discharge was gender discrimination and reversed the lower court which had thrown out the case.

The Jane Doe plaintiff worked as a graphics designer for CARS, a car insurance business with offices in several states. During her pregnancy, Doe learned that the baby had severe deformities. In accordance with her physician’s recommendation she and her husband chose to terminate the pregnancy.

Doe’s husband called CARS on his wife's behalf and asked for a week’s vacation for her.  According to his testimony  the request was approved.  CARS discharged Doe several days later  -- on the same day as the baby’s funeral.

In a question of first impression for the Third Circuit, the Court held that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s coverage extended to women who elected to terminate their pregnancies. In so doing, the Court relied on:

  1. Precedent from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Turic v. Holland Hospitality , Inc.
  2. EEOC guidelines ( which state that “a woman who is affected by pregnancy and related conditions must be treated the same as all other employee … and is therefore protected against such practices as being fired merely because she is pregnant or has had an abortion”) ;and
  3. Language from the legislative history of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ( “no employer may fire or refuse to hire a woman simply because she has exercised her right to have an abortion” and concluded:

Clearly, the plain language of the statute, together with the legislative history and the EEOC guidelines, support a conclusion that an employer may  not discriminate against a woman employer because she has exercised her right to have an abortion.

In comparing Doe to other employees who were temporarily disabled, the Court found evidence that Doe had been treated differently when she was fired instead of given leave.

Although we have held that the 'PDA does not require that employers treat pregnant employees better than other temporarily disabled employees '... the PDA does require that employers treat pregnant employees no worse.

The judgment of the district court was reversed and Jane Doe was given the right to have her day in court.

The opinion is certainly an important one for all working women. There is certainly no room in the law for discrimination in the workplace based upon a woman’s Constitutional right of privacy and freedom of choice. Fortunately there are some courts which agree.

Image: http://www.methodist.org.uk/static/interface/if_distressedwoman_05.07.jpg

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,