Judge Rita B. Garman on Employer and Employee Rights / Labor Unions
From Judgepedia
- Justice Rita B. Garman dissented from the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, concluded, amongst other things, that the defendant, a labor union that falsely picketed the plaintiff corporation with signage indicating that the corporation was paying its workers below the prevailing wage, was entitled to have the jury's punitive damages award against it reduced from $325,000 to $50,000, under the belief that the award represented a 75 to one ration of punitive damages to compensatory damages, and was thus in violation of the labor union's due process rights.
HOLDINGS:
The court specifically held that "a punitive damages award of $325,000, at a ratio of approximately 75 to 1, is unconstitutionally excessive in light of the Union's conduct in the instant case," and that "an award of punitive damages against the Union in the amount of $50,000, for a double-digit ratio of approximately 11 to 1, would be reasonable and constitutional."
MAJORITY REASONING:
- "As our analysis demonstrates, the Union's conduct was minimally reprehensible, and the appellate court's award of punitive damages far exceeded awards given in other cases where the conduct exhibited was much more egregious. Furthermore, Lowe did not present evidence demonstrating that it sustained any injury to its reputation that extended beyond its strained and ultimately reconciled relationship with FAMCO. We cannot presume such damage, as the evidence does not warrant it. Indeed, the evidence shows that Lowe was a nonunion company paying less than the prevailing wage from 1969 until 1988. While Lowe's business decisions in this regard have no bearing on the issue before us, it stands to reason that companies that did business with Lowe were aware of its practices, and remained Lowe customers nonetheless."
- "We recognize that the $50,000 awarded here does not come close to covering the attorney fees and costs which were incurred throughout the duration of this protracted litigation. While attorney fees can be considered when awarding punitive damages, it is not within the purview of this court to award such fees outright, nor should they be awarded under the guise of a punitive damages award. We have considered the cost of the litigation, as well as the goals of punishment and deterrence in fashioning the punitive damages award, and even after making those considerations, we find an award of $50,000 to be appropriate."
DISSENT REASONING:
- Justice Rita G. Garman was the lone dissenting vote, noting that "[b]ecause I believe the majority's decision in this case does not adequately vindicate the goals of punitive damage awards, I respectfully dissent. While the majority cites the goals of punishment and deterrence as informing its punitive award against the union, the resulting award of $50,000 does not achieve the purpose of those goals."
- Justice Garman noted that "there is no bright-line ratio" when it comes to determining the extent of the ratio of compensatory to punitive damages necessary to satisfy due process.
- The plaintiff corporation incurred over $225,000 in attorneys fees over the course of the litigation, and fees and expenses actually amounted to over $500,000. Thus a punitive damages award of $50,000 "does not go far enough."
- "I would go further than the majority to appropriately punish defendant for its intentionally malicious conduct as well as deter it and others from considering similar courses of conduct in the future. Similarly situated potential plaintiffs must know that they will recieve adequate compensation to justify filing suit in these type of cases, or to offset the extreme litigation costs * * *."
