Ruling Widens Scope of Job Bias Damages

The Supreme Court opened the door Monday to larger verdicts against employers who are found guilty of job discrimination, ruling that they may be forced to pay a worker’s future salary as well as damages for their past misconduct.

The unanimous ruling is a victory for workers, but employment lawyers described it as more of a clarification than a surprising change in the law.

In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress gave bias victims a new right to win as much as $300,000 in damages if they worked for large companies.

Before, workers who had been wrongly fired were able to win back pay and reinstatement to their previous job. The same held true for those who were denied promotions because of discrimination.

In recent years, however, many discrimination victims have said they do not want reinstatement to their old job but instead want to be paid until they find a new, similar job. This is known as “front pay.”

In the case decided Monday, Sharon Pollard said she had been sexually harassed repeatedly by her male co-workers at a DuPont plant in Memphis, Tenn. Her supervisors knew of the harassment and did nothing to stop it.

Because of the harassment, Pollard took a medical leave in 1995; in 1996, after she decided to not return to her job, the company fired her. She then sued DuPont. A jury ruled for her and awarded her the maximum $300,000 in damages.

Not surprisingly, Pollard said she did not want to return to the manufacturing plant, so her lawyers asked for front pay to compensate her until she found a new and comparable job.

During the trial, one expert witness testified that she might need as much as $800,000 in future compensation.

However, DuPont’s lawyers insisted the $300,000 damages limit set in the 1991 law included front pay. The trial judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed with the company and barred Pollard from winning the extra money.

On Monday, the justices overturned that ruling and said Congress put no limit on front pay.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who formerly headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said Congress “sought to expand the available remedies” for discrimination victims in 1991, not to contract them. And before that new law, he said, judges were authorized to give fired workers unlimited amounts for back pay and front pay.

The ruling in Pollard vs. E.I. DuPont, 00-763, covers the various types of illegal job discrimination, including bias based on an employee’s race, religion, gender, national origin or age.

However, it does not guarantee that a bias victim will receive much money. Judges decide how much the plaintiff deserves.

“It’s typically not a large amount. It usually covers a few weeks or few months until they find a comparable job,” said Washington lawyer Matthew M. Hoffman, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. He noted that all other courts, except the ones in Pollard’s case, had ruled that front pay was not limited by the damages cap set in the law.

“Frequently, by the time one of these cases goes to trial, the plaintiff is already employed elsewhere,” said Woodley Osborne, who represented the National Employment Lawyers Assn. However, some bias victims have a hard time getting reestablished in the work force and they might ask for several years’ worth of front pay, he said.

Monday’s ruling sends Pollard’s case back to a lower court to consider how much she should receive.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who sometimes recuses herself from cases in which she and her husband own stock, took no part in the decision.