Posted on November 6, 2008 by Richard Tuschman

Orlando Federal Court Slashes Punitive Damages Award to Plaintiff

A federal judge in Orlando has reduced a $5.378 million jury award to $610,000 in a case of sexual harassment allegedly committed by a wealthy timeshare developer.  The plaintiff, a spa employee at one of the developer's properties, brought suit after allegedly rejecting the developer's sexual advances, including a proposal for a ménage à trois with the developer's wife. 

The plaintiff's claims included sexual harassment under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act, and battery.  The jury found that the statutory claims were untimely, but found for the plaintiff on her battery claim.  The court described the trial as "a classic 'he said, she said' case where the jury was compelled to choose which side it found credible."  The jury awarded the plaintiff $102,233.14 in compensatory damages, and $5,276,640.00 in punitive damages. 

In a lengthy post-trial order, Judge John Antoon II of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida upheld the compensatory damages award.  "Considering the statutory and judicially-noted criteria," the Court wrote, "the Court is unable to conclude that the award of just over $100,000 in this case is outside the “reasonable range,” though it is certainly at the upper end of that range." Courts have recognized that review of “‘awards of compensatory damages for intangible, emotional harms is deferential to the fact finder because the harm is subjective and evaluating it depends considerably on the demeanor of the witnesses.’”

With regard to the punitive damages award, Judge Antoon noted that "Florida courts have held that the commission of intentional battery 'supplies the requisite proof . . . justifying a punitive damages award.'"  However, "[t]he Florida legislature has placed caps on punitive damages awards, and the instant award is subject to those caps. Generally, '[a]n award of punitive damages may not exceed the greater of . . . [t]hree times the amount of compensatory damages . . . or . . . [t]he sum of $500,000.” § 768.73(1)(a), Fla. Stat."

The court went on to note that "[t]he only potentially applicable exception to this limitation is '[w]here the fact finder determines that at the time of injury the defendant had a specific intent to harm the claimant and determines that the defendant’s conduct did in fact harm the claimant, there shall be no cap on punitive damages.'" In what appears to have been an error by the plaintiff's attorneys, Judge Antoon noted that "the proposed verdict form that Plaintiff proposed before trial did not ask the jury to make these findings. Plaintiff cannot now claim entitlement to uncapped punitive
damages without these findings in the face of a plainly written Florida statute that requires
specific determinations by the fact finder in order for the caps not to apply."

The case is Myers v. Central Fla. Invs. Inc., M.D. Fla., No. 6:04-CV-1542-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla.).  Defendants have filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on June 4, 2008 by Richard Tuschman

Florida Workers Compensation Law Bars Sexual Assault Lawsuit

The workers' compensation exclusive remedy doctrine bars common law causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision and for assault, battery, and rape arising out of the alleged sexual assault of a minor employee by a supervisor, according to Florida's Second District Court of Appeals in a recent decision, John Doe and Jane Doe v. Footstar Corporation. 

Joel Cooper and the plaintiffs' daughter worked at the same Footstar retail outlet, Cooper as a store manager and the daughter as a sales clerk. The plaintiffs sued Cooper and Footstar Corporation, claiming that he had assaulted and sexually battered their daughter in the course and scope of his employment with Footstar, and that Footstar had negligently hired, retained, supervised, and trained Cooper. The trial court entered a final judgment on the pleadings in favor of Footstar on the basis that the workers' compensation law barred the plaintiffs' claims.

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that "[t]here is no
exception to the exclusive remedy of the Florida workers' compensation law and this Court cannot create one under the facts of this case, as reprehensible as the conduct alleged by Plaintiffs appears to have been and as harsh as this result seems to be." 

The Footstar decision does not mean that sexual harassment claims are barred by the workers' compensation law.  As the court in Footstar noted, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Byrd v. Richardson Greenshield Securities (1989) that sexual harassment claims, and common law claims arising from sexual harassment, are not barred. 

So why were the common law claims in Footstar barred? That's not entirely clear from the opinion, but my guess is that the claims were not related to sexual harassment.  In other words, the relationship between Cooper and the employee was most likely consensual, and a consensual relationship (even one involving a minor) cannot form the basis for a sexual harassment claim.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,