well, in this case they needed to lower the boom, but,
the law prevented it. this does as linda said hurt
people. but, to be intellectually honest we must ask
why some states thought it necessary to put these
limits into place. i will say that other states are
considering the same type limits.
  while in this case there was a need to go big on
punitive damages to get the attention of the biggest
retailer in the world i think, there have been many a
judgement given that have been absolutely rediculous.
there is a practice of ventue shopping by laweyers in
which a county or parrish is chosen for filing of a
suit only becouse it is suit friendly. the lawyers
then ask for class action status and once they get it,
then they advertise nationwide for anyone who might
remotly be able to join the class. some companies have
literally been sued into bankruptcy. the results of
insurance premiums going through the roof  hurt more
people in numbers than do the limits. the states are
faced with fewer doctors in general and moreso the
specialist like ob/gyns becouse of the insurance
premiums. this hurts people too. so many states have
passed and others have proposed and still more will
propose this type limits. i think i could maybe give
suggestions that i think would have been better, but,
the punitive damage sword does definatly cut bot ways.
it  is a two edged sword that has been swung many
times when it should have been left in the scabbard.
the abuses have coused maybe a overeaction by the
states. it may take years for the pendalum to sawing
back.
   just another angle that we must look at to be
honest.

--- Kathy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com