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