Recent Jury Verdicts
Published by Eric A. Welter on December 23, 2007
Here are a few recent jury verdicts that make interesting fireside reading for the holidays: NY — Staffing firm executive wins $1.2 million in race and sex harassment suit. Plans on returning to work Jan. 2 despite being called a “black bitch” and having the firm CEO’s pelvis pushed up against her. CT — 63 year […]
Here are a few recent jury verdicts that make interesting fireside reading for the holidays:
NY — Staffing firm executive wins $1.2 million in race and sex harassment suit. Plans on returning to work Jan. 2 despite being called a “black bitch” and having the firm CEO’s pelvis pushed up against her.
CT — 63 year old turned down for laborer job with New Haven Public Works awarded $500,000 in age discrimination suit.
PA — DEA agents awarded $7 million for reverse discrimination. The award is likely to be reduced due to the damage caps under Title VII.
CA — White airport worker previously awarded $30,000 after being overlooked for promotion awarded $1 million in attorneys’ fees. The judge found that the City’s decision to change the promotion policy that had resulted in the employee being overlooked because, in part, of his race vindicated a substantial public policy interest and justified the large fee award despite the small monetary recovery by the plaintiff.
MD — An award of $237,000 to a Howard County, Maryland, teacher in a discrimination case was reduced by $62,000 due to a double recovery under both state and federal law in the original award. The plaintiff was an English teacher and was not responsible for the error.
EEOC — According to a press release issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Ford Motor Co., along with two related companies and a national union, will pay $1.6 million and provide other remedial relief to a class of nearly 700 African Americans to settle a major race discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). . . . The EEOC had charged in the litigation that a written test used by Ford, Visteon and Automotive Components Holdings (ACH) to determine the eligibility of hourly employees for a skilled trades apprenticeship program had a disproportionately negative impact on African Americans. The National United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) was also a defendant in the case because the test was used to select apprentices in the Ford-UAW Joint Apprenticeship Program and the lawsuit settlement affects people covered by the union agreement.
The comprehensive relief obtained by the EEOC includes about $1.6 million for the class of nearly 700 African Americans nationwide who have taken the test since January 1, 1997, and were not placed on the Ford apprentice list at the former Visteon facilities. Non-monetary relief includes placing 55 African American test takers on the apprentice lists and the development, by a jointly selected expert, of a new selection method for the apprenticeship program together with detailed reporting and monitoring provisions.”Topics: Jury Verdicts