The trick in representing any party in a discrimination case is predicting how much money the pain and suffering is worth. Unlike back pay, pain and suffering does not lend itself to a mathematical calculation. Trial courts tell the jury to use their judgment in assessing an amount, but the jury is not given a calculation chart. This means that many pain and suffering verdicts are subject to post-trial motion practice. Like this one.
The case is Emamian v. Rockefeller University, issued on August 19 in the form of two separate rulings, one of them precedential, and one of them in a non-precedential summary order. The very fact that the pain and suffering analysis is relegated to the summary order is telling. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's reduction of a two million dollar award to $200,000, but the issue is regarded as a relatively easy one for the Court of Appeals, which does not see the point in including this analysis in the precedential ruling, which addresses the propriety of the verdict form and how the trial court handled the confusion that resulted from the jury's unclear answers on that form.
The discrimination that plaintiff suffered at Rockefeller University is summarized in this blog post. The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Park and Underhill [D.J.]) describes plaintiff's pain and suffering as follows, stating that, when she began suffering disparate treatment because of her national origin:
Emamian began experiencing intensifying mental health issues. She commenced mental health treatment in September 2005 and was ultimately diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and trichotillomania, or compulsive hair pulling. Emamian testified that pulling her hair was the only way she could get relief from her extreme stress and that she continues to suffer from this condition. She also developed insomnia and was prescribed sleeping pills, to which she became severely addicted and which caused her to gain nearly forty pounds. As a result of her mental health struggles, she became socially isolated and rarely left the house. Emamian’s psychiatric expert testified that prior to her experience at Rockefeller, she had no psychiatric problems of any kind.
This is serious pain and suffering. It certainly demonstrates a lifestyle change. But the Court of Appeals holds that the district court correctly found that "even cases involving far more egregious conduct culminated in awards of far less than $2,000,000 and that comparable cases resulted in awards in the low six-figure range." We assess pain and suffering damages based on similar cases to ensure the verdict is not too far out of line with prior cases. Note that the Court of Appeals does not review the damage award based on the plaintiff's pain and suffering but on the employer's discriminatory conduct.
The three-part emotional distress guidelines that federal courts in New York employ is as follows (taken from the district court ruling in this case):
"In `garden variety' emotional distress claims, the evidence of mental suffering is generally limited to the testimony of the plaintiff, who describes his or her injury in vague or conclusory terms, without relating either the severity or consequences of the injury." "Garden variety" emotional distress claims "generally merit $30,000.00 to $125,000.00 awards."
"`Significant' emotional distress claims differ from the garden-variety claims in that they are based on more substantial harm or more offensive conduct, are sometimes supported by medical testimony and evidence, evidence of treatment by a healthcare professional and/or medication, and testimony from other, corroborating witnesses." Significant emotional distress damages usually range from $50,000.00 to $200,000.00.
"Finally, `egregious' emotional distress claims generally involve either `outrageous or shocking' discriminatory conduct or a significant impact on the physical health of the plaintiff. Such awards can exceed $200,000.00.
Under these guidelines, the district court concluded that "Plaintiff's claims for emotional distress fall into the intermediate, 'significant emotional distress' category, given Plaintiff's own testimony regarding her mental state, her trichotillomania and physical manifestations of her emotional suffering, as well as the corroborative medical testimony she presented. The Court finds an award of $200,000.00 to be appropriate." The Court of Appeals agrees.
No comments:
Post a Comment