Circuit awards harassment plaintiff $400,000 in compensatory and punitive damages

The Court of Appeals holds that, while the plaintiff suffered a hostile work environment, the jury's damages award, in excess of $2 million, was excessive. Instead, he is entitled to $250,000. But the Court also holds that the punitive damages award, $150,000, was proper in light of the outrageous harassment the plaintiff suffered.

The case is Sooroojballie v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a summary order issued on June 4. I wrote about the liability portion of the Second Circuit's decision at this link. Now it's time for the damages portion. I briefed the appeal, which was argued by Marjorie Mesidor, Esq., who tried the case.

While we leave it to juries to calculate damages for pain and suffering, the Court of Appeals "is required to police closely the size of awards rendered in the trial courts," and the legal standard is whether the award "shocks the conscience." The Court ultimately will look to similar cases to see if the jury's amount was too high. The Court of Appeals applies a three-part formula in making these adjustments:

In assessing whether a jury award for compensatory damages is excessive, courts in the Second Circuit have routinely identified three categories of damages for emotional distress: (1) garden variety; (2) significant; and (3) egregious: 

In garden-variety claims, the evidence of emotional harm is limited to the plaintiff’s testimony, which describes his or her injuries in vague or conclusory terms, and fails to relate the severity or consequences of the injury. These claims typically lack extraordinary circumstances and are not supported by medical testimony. Significant emotional distress claims are based on more substantial harm or offensive conduct and may be supported by medical testimony, evidence of treatment by a healthcare professional, and testimony from other witnesses. Egregious emotional distress claims yield the highest awards and are warranted only where the employer’s conduct was outrageous and shocking or affected the physical health of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's damages in this case were "significant" because the racial harassment caused him to suffer anxiety, insomnia, depression for which he was prescribed medication, strained family relations and excessive drinking. He attended 14 counseling sessions with a social worker and continued that therapy after he left Port Authority. "Significant" emotional distress cases are usually valued at $50,000 to $200,000, though some cases provide for more than that. This ruling cites some recent cases in this area. "Given the evidence in this case and our survey of comparable cases, we conclude that $250,000 is the upper limit of the reasonable range for the significant emotional distress that was described in Sooroojballie’s testimony. Accordingly, we grant a new trial as to Sooroojballie’s emotional distress damages unless he accepts a remittitur of the award to $250,000."

The jury also awarded plaintiff's supervisor, Frattali, $150,000 in punitive damages. That amount does not shock the conscience, the Court of Appeals (Sack, Hall and Bianco) holds, because the harassment was reprehensible, along with a false accusation that Frattali made against plaintiff, accusing him of sabotaging mechanical equipment at the airport, a potentially career-ending charge. This amount also falls below the $250,000 civil penalty cap set by the City Council for violations of the New York City Human Rights Law (which does not apply to Port Authority). As other cases in the Second Circuit have also awarded more than $150,000 in punitive damages, plaintiff's award is not excessive.