Employment — Harassment — punitive damages

Listen to this article

Employment — Harassment — punitive damages

Where racial and religious harassment went on for more than year years, the jury’s award of punitive damages was supported by the evidence.

“The bottom line in this case is simple, even if a little difficult to digest. May was subjected to repulsive harassment for more than three years. Chrysler suspected that May did it all himself. The jury, however, disagreed; Chrysler, it concluded, had not taken reasonable measures to stop the harassment. That was liability. (And, as explained, we have no doubt that the
record easily supports the jury’s decision on that issue.)

With liability fixed, May’s case for punitive damages is straightforward and persuasive: Chrysler did not increase its (meager) efforts over a long stretch of time in the face of remarkably awful harassment, and that was reckless. It would be nonsensical to eliminate the award of punitive damages based on sympathy for an argument that May’s harms were self-inflicted if another
issue, already resolved (liability), requires that they were not. On these unusual facts, there’s no splitting the difference. The jury’s verdict on liability is affirmed and the jury’s verdict on punitive damages will be reinstated.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

11-3000 & 11-3109 May v. Chrysler Group, LLC

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kapala, J., Tinder, J.

Full Text