I know, I was appalled when I read of the ruling yesterday. :(

Kat

On Tuesday 28 June 2005 7:34 pm, Linda Walker wrote:
>          I am very sorry to see these ludicrous caps on punitive damages.
> The judge is right on saying he had no choice but does not agree with it. I
> work on civil lawsuits for plaintiffs personally injured by corporations
> and enormous punitive damages are the BEST message to send in order to
> protect people. Some states do not have punitive damages and many have
> caps, the feds are the worst, and caps are an important part of the Bush
> agenda that hurts people.
>          There was another terrible ruling for a Colorado woman whose
> husband killed their three children when the police refused to enforce her
> protective order.
> It does not specifically speak to CP cases as the other one does but
> protecting the rights of the most vulnerable is important to us all.
> ACLU Disappointed with Supreme Court Ruling on Domestic Violence Orders of
> Protection
>
> June 27, 2005   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  Contact:
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
> Civil Liberties Group Calls on States to Take Lead in Protecting Victims of
> Domestic Violence
>
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 7:34 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Court Reluctantly Trims Wal-Mart Penalty
> >
> >Court Reluctantly Trims Wal-Mart Penalty
> >Michael Bobelian
> >New York Law Journal
> >06-23-2005
> >
> >A federal magistrate judge Wednesday reduced a jury verdict by $4.7
> >million in a disabilities discrimination case against Wal-Mart.
> >
> >In doing so, Eastern District of New York Magistrate Judge James
> >Orenstein said that the $300,000 federal cap on punitive damages in the
> >Americans with Disabilities Act would have little impact on changing the
> >behavior of a "commercial titan" like Wal-Mart.
> >
> >In Patrick S. Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, CV 03-3843, plaintiff Patrick
> >Brady, who suffers from cerebral palsy, sued Wal-Mart under the federal
> >Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. In February, a Central
> >Islip, N.Y., jury found that personnel at the store in Centereach, N.Y.,
> >violated federal and state laws by making a prohibited inquiry before
> >giving Brady an employment offer.
> >
> >The company also subjected Brady to adverse employment conditions by
> >transferring him from the pharmacy to a more physically taxing position
> >pushing carts in the parking lot, according to the verdict.
> >
> >The jury awarded Brady $7.5 million in damages, including $5 million in
> >punitive damages.
> >
> >Orenstein modified the verdict, reducing it to $2.8 million. Most of the
> >reduction came in dropping the punitive damage award to $300,000. The
> >reduction did not take much deliberation from the judge as it was within
> >the "plain meaning" of applicable federal statutes.
> >
> >"The preceding ruling respects the law," Orenstein wrote, "but it does
> >not achieve a just result."
> >
> >Under federal anti-discrimination law, punitive damages are calculated
> >according to the size of the employer.
> >
> >"The statute calibrates its caps on punitive damages to reflect the size
> >of the employer whose misconduct is to be punished -- a scheme that
> >would appear designed to assure that the civil punishment imposed on a
> >corporate offender is meaningful but not fatal," the magistrate judge
> >held.
> >
> >Violators with 15 to 100 employees would pay no more than $50,000, for
> >instance. Those with 500 or more employees, like Wal-Mart, the world's
> >largest retailer, would pay up to $300,000.
> >
> >"There is no meaningful sense in which such an award can be considered
> >punishment," Orenstein wrote, pointing out that Wal-Mart had $300,000 in
> >sales every 37 seconds last year.
> >
> >"In essence then," he continued, "most companies can be punished if they
> >intentionally discriminate on the basis of disability ... but the
> >biggest companies that do so are effectively beyond the law's reach."
> >
> >Orenstein said that Wal-Mart would not be deterred by the amount of
> >punitive damages. He found that in dealing with Brady, the company had
> >not adhered to a consent decree it entered into with the Equal
> >Employment Opportunity Commission in 2001 requiring it to train managers
> >and change hiring practices.
> >
> >"The most generous conclusion I could draw ... was that the Wal-Mart
> >employees who testified are well-intentioned people whom the company
> >willfully failed to provide with sufficient training to abide by the
> >anti-discrimination law," Orenstein wrote.
> >
> >"The result," he concluded, "was that Brady was subjected to the kind of
> >discrimination against the disabled that both the law and the prior
> >consent decree was designed to prevent."
> >
> >The $300,000 punitive cap, he held, "appears unlikely ... to restrain
> >Wal-Mart from inflicting similar abuses on those who may be doomed to
> >follow in Brady's footsteps."
> >
> >Douglas Wigdor of Thompson Wigdor & Gilly represented Brady. Joel Finger
> >of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner represented Wal-Mart.
> >
> >
> ># # #
> >
> >--
> >
> >DISCLAIMER: The JFA Listserv is designed to share
> >information of interest to people with disabilities and
> >promote dialogue in the disability community. Information
> >circulated does not necessarily express the views of AAPD.
> >The JFA Listserv is non-partisan.
> >
> >JOIN AAPD! There's strength in numbers! Be a part of a
> >national coalition of people with disabilities and join
> >AAPD today. http://www.aapd-dc.org
> >
> >
> >JFA ARCHIVES. All JFA postings from 1995 to present are
> >available at:
> >http://www.aapd-dc.org/JFA/JFAabout.html
> >
> >
> >NOTE: Some Internet Providers (including AOL, Earthlink and
> >Juno) may see JFA postings as spam because of the large
> >volume of JFA mail recipients and fail to deliver the
> >posting. If this happens, the JFA system may automatically
> >unsubscribe some email addresses. Should you stop receiving
> >JFA Alerts, please subscribe to JFA again as per the
> >instructions at
> >   http://www.aapd-dc.org/JFA/JFAsubscribing.html
> >You may also need to contact your service provider to find
> >out how to prevent JFA postings from being recognized as
> >spam.
> >
> >PLEASE EMPTY YOUR EMAIL INBOX REGULARLY. JFA automatically
> >deletes subscribers that are over their message quota.
> >If you stop using an account please unsubscribe that old
> >account.
> >
> >With hundreds of inbound emails and thousands of outbound
> >emails daily, JFA can not respond to every message.
> >
> >We thank you for your understanding and continued
> >outstanding advocacy!
> >
> >Fred Fay
> >JUSTICE FOR ALL -- A Service of the
> >American Association of People with Disabilities
> >http://www.aapd-dc.org/JFA/JFAabout.html
> >
> >=====================================================================
> >                  Justice-For-All FREE Subscriptions
> >    To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to [log in to unmask]
> >          with one or the other in the body of your message:
> >                          subscribe justice
> >                         unsubscribe justice