Many Should Share in Sex Bias Suit Awards

In the recent civil judgment in favor of Janella Sue Martin’s sex discrimination claim against Texaco Inc. (“Award in Sex Bias Case Raised to $17.6 Million,” Oct. 4), Martin claimed that Texaco systematically excludes women from upper-level management jobs. The jury awarded her $2.65 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages. Who is entitled to receive the punitive damage award?

Let’s assume the judgment was fair. Martin filed the suit, but why should she be entitled to the punitive damage settlement for wrongs that harmed many women? How effective is that in correcting problems that breed this type of suit?

Martin, who happens to work for an international oil conglomerate, was given a very large punitive award because punitive damages are based on the assumption that it takes a proportionately large penalty to get a very large concern such as Texaco to correct the problem. What sense does it make that a person working for a large company gets more money for the same wrong than a person working for a small firm?

The system of punitive judgment awards should be overhauled so that the blood money goes not to the injured party but instead to a general fund that applies the money from many suits to solving the problems that generate them.

Since the objective of punitive judgments is to prevent a recurrence, wouldn’t the money be more effectively spent on schools or parks, or police protection, or drug intervention or anything that helps society rather than simply handing it to an individual so they can live in luxury?

Martin was compensated for her injuries by the compensatory damage judgment and should not be entitled to anything more. The $15 million the jury awarded her is really for all the women who work/worked for Texaco who also were affected by the discriminatory policies or, better yet, all people who are harmed by policies that favor one group over another.

ROBERT P. BROWN

Santa Monica