Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courts Clarify Damages Caps Under Federal Employment Discrimination Statutes
Recent decisions by federal Courts of Appeals in the First and Fifth Circuits shed light on two issues critical to the question every employer asks after being served with an employment discrimination lawsuit: “What's the worst that can happen?”
As originally enacted, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on gender, religion, national origin, race, and color, allowed plaintiffs to recover only for lost wages (i.e., back pay and front pay) starting two years before the date the plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC. However, plaintiffs have been able to recover much more since 1991. Specifically, a 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights Act expanded the scope of damages recoverable under Title VII and other employment discrimination statutes (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and, now, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”)) if a plaintiff proves intentional discrimination. A successful plaintiff may now recover compensatory damages, such as emotional distress, and punitive damages. Although a plaintiff may now recover more than just lost wages, the good news is that the total amount of compensatory and punitive damages awardable is limited by statutory limits or “caps,” which depend on the number of individuals employed by the company that was found liable for unlawful discrimination.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.