Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc.

16 Citing cases

  1. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. W. Distrib. Co.

    322 F. Supp. 3d 1100 (D. Colo. 2018)

    Plaintiff cites to a variety of courts that allowed for a basic structure of bifurcation where an initial jury hears evidence regarding liability and punitive damages in the context of a pattern-or-practice claim. Id. at 10–11 (citing EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Fla., Inc. , 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1206 (D. Colo. 2008) and EEOC v. Dial Corp. , 259 F.Supp.2d 710, 711–14 (N.D. Ill. 2003) ).Plaintiff suggests that the Phase I jury would initially "determine whether the defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination," and if the jury did so determine, it "would then reconvene to hear evidence regarding whether the defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference to the employees' rights in engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination, deciding whether punitive damages are appropriate, and if so, the amount necessary to deter and punish the defendant."

  2. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C.

    865 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Yet neither Bass Pro nor the dissent explains why each of those trial plans is unconstitutional.U.S. Equal Employ't Comm'n v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., No. 98 C 1601, 1999 WL 528200 (N.D. Ill. July 13, 1999) ; E.E.O.C. v. Dial Corp., 259 F.Supp.2d 710 (N.D. Ill. 2003) ; E.E.O.C. v. Int'l Profit Assocs., Inc., No. 01 C 4427, 2007 WL 3120069 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007) ; E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steak House of Fla., Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202 (D. Colo. 2008) ; E.E.O.C. v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Rests., Inc., No. WMN-08-984, 2008 WL 10697581 (D. Md. 2008) ; E.E.O.C. v. Burlington Med. Supplies, Inc., 536 F.Supp.2d 647 (E.D. Va. 2008) ; E.E.O.C. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d 83 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) ; Equal Employ't Opportunity Comm'n v. JBS USA, LLC, 8:10CV318, 2011 WL 13137568 (D. Neb. May 31, 2011) ; E.E.O.C. v. Pitre, Inc., 908 F.Supp.2d 1165 (D.N.M. 2012) ; David v. Signal Int'l, LLC, 37 F.Supp.3d 814 (E.D. La. 2013) ; E.E.O.C. v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., No. 1:12-cv-0275-SEB-TAB, 2013 WL 1701074 (S.D. Ind. April 18, 2013) ; E.E.O.C. v. Performance Food Grp., Inc., 16 F.Supp.3d 576 (D. Md. 2014) ; U.S. E.E.O.C. v. PMT Corp., 124 F.Supp.3d 904 (D. Minn. 2015) ; E.E.O.C. v. Mavis Disc. Tire, Inc., 129 F.Supp.3d 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ; E.E.O.C. v. Cintas Corp., No.04-40132, 2015 WL 1954476 (E.D. Mich. April 29, 2015). This effort to confound the entry of a trial plan at this juncture is exposed by the reality that, in addit

  3. Johnson v. Nextel Commc'ns Inc.

    780 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2015)

    See, e.g., EEOC v. Performance Food Grp., 16 F.Supp.3d 576, 581–82 (D.Md.2014) ; EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d 83, 91 (W.D.N.Y.2011) ; Iorio v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 05 CV 633 JLS (CAB), 2009 WL 3415703, at *5–*8 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 21, 2009) ; EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Fla., Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1206–07 (D.Colo.2008) ; EEOC v. Dial Corp., 259 F.Supp.2d 710, 713–14 (N.D.Ill.2003) ; Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 371 Mont. 393, 428, 310 P.3d 452 (2013) ; Engle v. Liggett Grp., 945 So.2d 1246, 1262 (Fla.2006) ; Catherine M. Sharkey, The Future of Classwide Punitive Damages, 46 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 1127, 1139–40 (2013) ; Sheila B. Scheuerman, Two Worlds Collide: How the Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Decisions Affect Class Actions, 60 Baylor L.Rev. 880, 906 (2008).As the Supreme Court explained in State Farm, while there is no rigid upper limit on a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, the propriety of the ratio can be meaningfully assessed only when comparing the ratio to the amount of compensatory damages awarded.

  4. Johnson v. Nextel Commc'ns Inc.

    780 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2014)

    See, e.g., EEOC v. Performance Food Grp., 16 F.Supp.3d 576, 581–82 (D.Md.2014); EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d 83, 91 (W.D.N.Y.2011); Iorio v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 05 CV 633 JLS (CAB), 2009 WL 3415703, at *5–*8 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 21, 2009); EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Fla., Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1206–07 (D.Colo.2008); EEOC v. Dial Corp., 259 F.Supp.2d 710, 713–14 (N.D.Ill.2003); Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 371 Mont. 393, 428, 310 P.3d 452 (2013); Engle v. Liggett Grp., 945 So.2d 1246, 1262 (Fla.

  5. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Hillstone Rest. Grp.

    22-CV-3108 (JLR) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2023)

    The EEOC references a case in which the court determined, in the context of Title VII discrimination claims, that eligibility for punitive damages would be determined during Phase 1, while the amount of punitive damages, if awarded, would be determined in Phase 2. See E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1206 (D. Colo. 2008) (denying motion to defer issue of eligibility for punitive damages to Phase 2 trial in gender discrimination case because, among other reasons, “the evidence required to establish liability for punitive damages significantly overlaps with the evidence necessary to prove a pattern or practice of discrimination”).

  6. Walker v. Spina

    No. CIV 17-0991 JB\SCY (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2019)

    Walker avers that her failure to disclosure the treatment providers as experts has not surprised or prejudiced the Defendants. See Treatment Provider Response at 5-9 (citing Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins., 170 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1999)); FinHarvey v. Thiof N.M. at Albuquerque Care Ctr., LLC, No. CIV 12-0727 MCA/LAM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182693, at *18 (D.N.M. March 31, 2015)(Armijo, J.); Peshlakai v. Ruiz, No. CIV 13-0752 JB/ACT, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173622, at *61-62 (D.N.M. Dec. 7, 2013)(Browning, J.); Coffey v. United States, No. CIV 08-0588 JB/LFG, 2012 WL 2175747 (D.N.M. May 26, 2012)(Browning, J.); Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Outback Steak House of Fla., Inc., Civil Action No. 06-cv-01935-EWN-KLM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63758, at *16-18 (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2008)(Nottingham, J.); Stone v. Deagle, Case Action No. 05-cv-1438-RPM-CBS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90430, at *14-15 (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2006)(Shaffer, M.J.)). 6.

  7. Buchanan v. Tata Consultancy Servs., Ltd.

    Case No.15-cv-01696-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2017)   Cited 3 times
    In Buchanan, unlike here, defendants did not even argue that adding the proposed new plaintiffs would result in prejudice.

    However, defendant ignores the fact that Phase One issues also include a determination on the availability of punitive damages which provides an independent basis for plaintiffs' standing in this case. Rollins, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7294, *54; Ellis, 285 F.R.D. at 542-43 (stating that "the availability of punitive damages should be adjudicated in Stage One of the trial"); E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1205-07 (D. Colo. 2008). Plaintiffs contend that they have established all requirements for certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3).

  8. U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. PMT Corp.

    124 F. Supp. 3d 904 (D. Minn. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    (describing approaches)); Sterling Jewelers Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d at 90 (“[S]everal courts and commentators have declined to adopt the ‘punitives first’ bifurcation procedure proposed by the EEOC.”); compare, e.g., Pitre, 908 F.Supp.2d at 1178 (splitting eligibility for punitive damages and amount of punitive damages to be awarded into first and second phases respectively); Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Outback Steak House of Fla., Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1206–07 (D.Colo.2008) (same), with Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Performance Food Grp., Inc., 16 F.Supp.3d 576, 579–83 (D.Md.2014) (punitive damages to be determined in second phase); David v. Signal Int'l, LLC, Civ. Action Nos. 08–1220, 12–557, 2013 WL 4446833, at *2 (E.D.La. Aug. 19, 2013) [hereinafter David I ] (same), order clarified, David II, 37 F.Supp.3d 814; Celadon Trucking Servs., 2013 WL 1701074, at *3 (same); Sterling Jewelers Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d at 92 (same). The EEOC itself acknowledges that courts are not in agreement.

  9. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Cintas Corp.

    Case No. 04-40132 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Id. (Citing EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1205 (D. Colo. 2008)). The district court in EEOC v. Outback Steaks House of Florida, Inc. noted that the "Tenth and Ninth Circuits have allowed the same jury to determine the defendant's liability and plaintiff's eligibility for punitive damages."

  10. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Performance Food Grp., Inc.

    16 F. Supp. 3d 576 (D. Md. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Deciding whether to certify punitive damages claims at certification

    The Pitre district court divided the case into two phases: See also E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steak House of Fla., Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1205–07 (D.Colo.2008) (adopting a procedure whereby, in Phase I the jury would determine eligibility for punitive damages and in Phase II a jury would determine the amount of compensatory and punitive damages for each individual). • Phase I [Jury finding]—Did a pattern or practice exist and, if so, was the pattern or practice done with malice or reckless indifference?