Relates to certain jury awards in employment discrimination actions

• Democratic9

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Andrew Gounardes says this is needed

Judges in civil judicial proceedings in New York state are empowered to overrule and reduce jury awards (known as a remittitur) or increase them (known as an additur) if they believe that the jury has erred in any way in its estimation of what a plaintiff is owed. In cases of employment discrimination brought under Executive Law § 296 (the Human Rights Law), these awards frequently take the form of emotional distress and punitive damages which will deter defendants and other employers from allowing harassment in the workplace to go unchecked. Judges in New York have begun to generically sort claims under § 296, however, into certain categories based on details about the case and defendant, relying heavily on prior case law. A case in which a plain- tiff has not received medical treatment might be labeled as "garden variety" and assigned a value of $125,000 or less, no matter what the jury awarded the plaintiff, where a case involving an "intermediate" level of emotional distress gets more. These categories, which have no basis in medical or sociological fact, are simply a result of judges looking at prior damages of "similar" cases of employment discrimi- nation. Routinely resulting in reductions of tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, these decisions serve to undermine juries and public confidence in the civil court system by overturning jury verdicts for seemingly no valid reason. New York stands alone in the degree to which judges disregard workplace harassment jury verdicts in what are frequently highly sensitive and nuanced cases. In surrounding states such as New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, jury verdicts are entitled to substan- tial deference and presumed to be correct absent a clear miscarriage of justice. This bill establishes a higher standard for remittiturs and additurs in cases involving unlawful discrimination relating to employment under Executive Law § 296, better aligning New York with other states. It provides that a court may not overturn a jury's verdict unless it finds that a proponent has the court finds exceptional circumstances which compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by impartiality, prejudice, mistake, or corruption, and that a remittitur or additur is necessary to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. The court may not categorize awards based on similar characteristics of other damage awards or be bound by judicial precedent when considering whether or not to alter a jury award. The court must give primary consideration to the remedial purpose of the law. It is the sponsor's hope that these reforms will curb the arbitrary categorization and reduction of emotional distress and punitive damages for victims of workplace harassment so that perpetrators of this abusive behavior are held fully accountable for their actions and victims receive the justice they deserve.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.