Court upholds $2+ million damages award in sexual harassment case

The Court of Appeals has sustained a largeverdict on behalf of a woman who prevailed at trial on her sex discrimination claim, holding that the damages award in the amount of $2 million is not excessive. This is among the few cases that hold that the plaintiff in such a case is entitled to over $1 million for pain and suffering.

The case is Pizarro v. Quezada, a summary order issued on October 9. Over the course of nine years, plaintiff was repeatedly sexually harassed. Her boss groped her three to four times perm month, told sexually explicit stories in her presence, and once masturbated in front of her. He also tried to rape her at work; another woman came to plaintiff's rescue, interrupting the attempted rape. 

The jury awarded plaintiff $1.725 in compensatory damages. That is not excessive under federal law ("shocks the conscience" test) and state law ("deviates materially" from similar cases). Since Title VII has a $300,000 cap and state law has no cap, the award is allocated under state law. 

The Court of Appeals (Chin, Nardini and Kahn) views this as a sexual assault case, noting that while her jury award "outstrips awards in many other cases involving workplace sexual harassment, even cases involving physical touching, . . . Pizarro’s testimony regarding Quezada’s attempt to forcibly rape her, which we must assume the jury credited in reaching its verdict, renders the jury’s award more comparable to cases directly involving sexual assault claims, which have tended to result in higher awards." Non-employment cases, i.e., cases involving negligence and actions against the police, awarding seven figures in damages are in line with this case. 

While plaintiff did not put on medical evidence to support her damages claim, that does not justify reducing the award. "True, corroborating medical or expert evidence of a plaintiff’s emotional distress is often introduced to substantiate a plaintiff’s account of her own distress, and district courts often point to the presence of such evidence to shore up the reasonableness of a jury award or a court’s own recommended award. But corroborating expert testimony or medical evidence of a plaintiff’s
distress is not required to sustain an award of emotional distress damages." We trust the jury on issues like this, and juries do not always need to hear from a medical professional on the value of the plaintiff's case. as "Pizarro submitted evidence that she attempted suicide, received psychiatric treatment for depression, suffered from PTSD, and had recurring nightmares . . . , we cannot say that the jury's $1.725 million compensatory damages award was excessive."

As for the punitive damages, they do not shock the conscience, the federal standard. Not only was the workplace sexual harassment "highly reprehensible," but the punitive damages are only 57% of the compensatory damages; while punitives that exceed the compensatory damages may be a problem, that is not a problem here. As the punitive damages are comparable to those awarded in other cases involving sexual violence -- even if they do not involve workplace harassment -- the award stands.