Jury Asked to Rethink Size of Bias Case Award : * Litigation: Judge says he believes that compensatory damages of $6.8 million in the sex-discrimination suit are ‘grossly disproportionate.’

A Superior Court judge said Friday that a jury’s nearly $7-million award to a Los Angeles woman in a sex-discrimination case against Texaco Inc. was too large, and he will ask the jury to rethink its decision.

Adding an unusual twist to a controversial case, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ronald Cappai said in court he believed that the award for compensatory damages was “grossly disproportionate.” His concern, he said, was that jurors may have mistakenly believed that they were calculating punitive damages in the case.

Punitive damages are intended as punishment for intentional or reckless wrongdoing. Compensatory awards are meant to cover actual economic damage and intangible damage suffered by the plaintiff in a case. The jury will not address punitive damages against Texaco until next week.

After his announcement, Cappai quickly added that “I’m not making my predetermination” about what amount should be awarded to Janella Sue Martin. Martin alleges in a 1986 suit that Texaco Inc., based in White Plains, N.Y., passed her over twice for management jobs.

Many labor attorneys say the compensatory amount awarded last Wednesday was the largest ever granted to an individual in a sex-discrimination case.

The first phase of the trial, to determine compensatory damages, ended last Wednesday. The jury awarded Martin about $6.8 million for economic loss and non-economic damages--intangibles such as pain, suffering and loss of functioning capacity.

Cappai’s announcement came before the jury assembled in the courtroom. Cappai later told the assembled jury that the case will be put on hold until next Wednesday because one juror had to be excused for a dental emergency.

Cappai said that on Wednesday, he will give the 12 jurors an interrogatory, a one-page questionnaire that asks the jurors if they included in the $6.8 million “any amount of damages to punish the defendant.”

Lawyers for Texaco and Martin declined any comment about the ongoing trial. But labor lawyers following the Martin case said Cappai’s highly cautious move was unusual. Bill McNeill, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Employment Law Center, said it was “very strange” to have a judge ask jurors to explain part of their deliberation process during a trial.

But Cappai does have the authority to ask the jurors to fill out the questionnaire, several labor lawyers said Friday.

From a tactical standpoint, some attorneys said that Cappai’s action could actually help Martin avoid an appeal by Texaco over the compensatory amount. If Cappai finds that the jury did not calculate punitive damages, they said, that would make it much harder for Texaco to appeal the amount once the trial ends.

The Martin case stems from a sex-discrimination lawsuit, in which the 48-year-old senior credit supervisor accused Texaco of passing her over twice--in favor of men she called less qualified--when management positions opened.

The first time, Texaco promoted her boss instead of her while she worked for the oil giant in Houston, according to court documents. She also alleges that in December, 1984, Texaco promised her a promotion if she moved from Houston to Los Angeles. The company never followed through, court documents said.

Martin’s lawyer, Dan Stormer, used testimony two weeks ago from a Harvard psychologist who said Martin suffered from dysthymia, a form of depression with side effects that include mood and weight swings and forgetfulness.

The psychologist testified that Martin lost about 50% of her capacity to function as a result of Texaco’s discriminatory promotional practices. Court papers filed in Superior Court said, “As a direct and proximate result of (Texaco’s discriminatory promotional practices) the plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.”