Michigan Supreme Court Overturns $21 Million Sex Harassment Verdict

[BaysideLiberal]

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - The Michigan Supreme Court threw out a $21 million verdict against DaimlerChrysler AG in a sexual harassment case brought by an autoworker, saying the amount was "so excessive and so clearly the product of passion and prejudice."

<snip>

Linda Gilbert has claimed DaimlerChrysler co-workers called her cruel names rarely uttered in mixed company and left sexually explicit cartoons and photos on and near her locker at a Chrysler assembly plant in Detroit.

She said she endured the sexual harassment for years, and won a $21 million judgment from a state court jury against the automaker in 1999.

<snip>

"The jury's verdict unmistakably reflects passion rather than reason and prejudice rather than impartiality," the court said.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBAAFQ7ZWD.html

[truthspeaker]

1. Did he overthrow the verdict or the judgement?

He talks about how the award amount is excessive, but not the merits of the case itself.

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. translation

Daimler-Chrystler is a major campaign contributor, so were gonna take thier side

[Straight Shooter]

3. Juries award such amounts to punish the aggressors

It isn't the result of "passion," it's a deliberate attempt to send a message to stop it from happening again, not just at Daimler-Chrylser, but at other major corporations, too.

Looks like the message got squished like a bug.

[sandnsea]

4. I know

People used to understand the point of large awards, it's the only way to get a huge corporation to take responsibility. I hope Edwards will start reminding people of that.

[Mississippi Liberal]

5. The big problem is the result of the U.S. Supreme Court

It used to be that appellate courts would rarely if ever overturn jury verdicts and awards solely because the amount of damages was excessive. Then, in the late '90s, the Supreme Court decided _Gore v. BMW_ (no relation to Al, naturally), which held 5-4 that punitive damages awards could be so excessive that they violate the Due Process clause. Ironically, Scalia wrote the dissent in that case, virtually the only opinion he ever wrote that I agree with. The net result today is that punitive damages awards are usually unconstitutional if they exceed more than 10 times the amount of compensatory damages (the amount intended to make the plaintiff "whole"). That this limit often amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist to most corporate defendants does not seem to concern the Court.