Opinion
No. CV-05-116-HU.
January 24, 2007
Charese A. Rohny, CHARESE ROHNY LAW OFFICE, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Eric A. Lindenauer, Joy Ellis, GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
On July 31, 2006, a jury awarded plaintiff $225,000 in non-economic compensatory damages on a Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim. The jury also awarded plaintiff $250,000 in punitive damages on this claim.
In a subsequent Opinion, I awarded plaintiff $16,239.48 in past lost wages on her Title VII claim and a parallel claim under Oregon Revised Statute § (O.R.S.) 659A.030. Aug. 11, 2006 Op. Ord. I rejected plaintiff's claim for front pay. Id. In that Opinion, I also noted that based on the parties' oral stipulation following receipt of the verdict, the Judgment in this case would reflect the $300,000 statutory cap on compensatory and punitive damages found in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D), on the Title VII claim. Thus, the total damages recovered by plaintiff on her Title VII and O.R.S. 659A.020 claims in the Judgment was $316,239.48.
Following entry of Judgment on August 15, 2006, defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages award only. I denied that motion on October 26, 2006. During the hearing on that motion, however, I raised the issue of how the $300,000 damages on the Title VII claim should be allocated between punitive and compensatory damages. The parties then briefed the issue, advocating for competing methods.
Having considered the briefing, I order that the $300,000 in damages on the Title VII claim be attributed first to the $225,000 in compensatory damages, with the remainder of $75,000 to be considered punitive damages.
As the Seventh Circuit recognized, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), which establishes the cap for compensatory and punitive damages, "contains no command as to how a district court is to conform a jury award to the statutory cap." Jonasson v. Lutheran Child Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 441 (7th Cir. 1997). Nor is there any well-defined case law.
Although defendant's arguments in support of a proportionate award of $142,105 in compensatory damages, and $157,895 in punitive damages, are well-taken, given the post-judgment challenge by defendant to the punitive damages award, and the likely challenge to that award on appeal, I conclude that it is prudent to award plaintiff the full amount of compensatory damages, followed by a reduced amount of punitive damages. This will preserve the full amount of compensatory damages to plaintiff should defendant prevail on its appeal of the punitive damages award. It will also require no change to the compensatory damage award by this Court after such an appeal.
Moreover, as plaintiff notes, it is reasonable to keep intact that portion of the jury's award directed personally to plaintiff in order to make her whole and limit the portion of the award targeted to the punishment of defendant. At least one court has reached a similar result. See Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 365, 371, 375-76 (7th Cir. 2000) (jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 punitive damages, but judgment capped damages at $300,000; punitive damage award reversed on appeal, "leaving [plaintiff] with a judgment for $200,000 in compensatory damages.").
CONCLUSION
The $300,000 damages award on the Title VII claim is allocated as $225,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.