Keywords: Cap Statutes,

McPadden v. WalMart Stores East, L.P., No. 14-cv-475, awarded more than $31 million to a former Wal-Mart employee who had worked for the company as a pharmacist. The plaintiff sued for discrimination and retaliation after she was terminated as discipline for losing a pharmacy key. As is common in these cases, the news stories were technically accurate but left a misleading impression of what happened. First, the news stories reported that the award included $15 million in punitive damages, but did not point out that the punitive award is subject to a statutory cap. The punitive damages were awarded under Title VII, which caps compensatory and punitive damages at $300,000 for an employer of Wal-Mart's size. Since the jury also awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages concurrently under Title VII and state law, the punitive damages should be substantially reduced if not eliminated.

Second, the news stories didn't report that the $31 million award also includes another $15 million in "enhanced compensatory damages" for gender discrimination in violation of New Hampshire state law. New Hampshire law prohibits punitive damages, but allows the augmentation of compensatory damages in certain cases in which the wrongdoer's actions were especially egregious. "Enhanced damages" are not punitive damages, but are intended to compensate the plaintiff "for the vexation and distress caused the plaintiff by the character of defendant's conduct." Vratsenes v. N.H. Auto, Inc., 289 A.2d 66, 72 (N.H. 1972). The jury here was instructed that "enhanced damages, unlike punitive damages, may not be awarded in an effort to punish the defendant." But the jury apparently did just that when it awarded "enhanced compensatory damages" in an amount equal to the punitive damages. Because these damages are grossly excessive and were self-evidently awarded for an improper purpose—to punish the defendant—Wal-Mart will have excellent arguments for a new trial or a dramatic remittitur.

Assuming that the case doesn't settle, we'll post an update when the district court rules on Wal-Mart's post-trial motions, which are due on March 1 and probably won't be resolved until at least a few months after that.

Originally published February 4, 2016

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2016. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.