Recently-proposed New York State legislation (A2865/S17) would make it more difficult for defendants to overturn employment discrimination damage awards.
In sum, the law “[p]rovides that the court shall not reduce jury awards as excessive in employment discrimination actions unless the court finds that the proponent has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict compels the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.”
Among other things, the proposed legislation amends New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 4404(a) and 5501(c).
Among other things, the legislation would amend CPLR 5501(c) to add the following provision:
WHERE AN AWARD IS MADE BY A JURY FOR ANY DAMAGES IN A CASE INVOLVING AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING A CLAIM BY A NON-EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX-D OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, THE JURY’S VERDICT IS PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT AND ENTITLED TO SUBSTANTIAL DEFERENCE. ANY SUCH AWARD SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT THE PROPONENT HAS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE VERDICT COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE JURY WAS INFLUENCED BY PARTIALITY, PREJUDICE, MISTAKE OR CORRUPTION, AND REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IN MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION, THE COURT SHALL NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE JURY’S, SHALL GIVE PRIMARY WEIGHT TO THE REMEDIAL PURPOSE OF THE LAW, AND SHALL NOT LIMIT ANY AWARD BY INCLUSION IN OR EXCLUSION FROM ANY CATEGORY OF CASE OR BY USING ANY CHARACTERIZATIONS OF OTHER DAMAGE AWARDS. IN REVIEWING ANY SUCH VERDICT IN ANY CASE FILED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS PARAGRAPH, THE COURT SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY PRECEDENT WHICH UTILIZED THE CONCEPT OF MATERIAL DEVIATION FROM WHAT WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION, OR A JUDGE’S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCES FROM PRIOR CASES. THE EVIDENCE SHALL BE REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO SUSTAINING THE VERDICT. A COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY TO ORDER A REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR ONLY IN THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
The proposed legislation also frees courts from being bound by precedent utilizing the concept of “material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation.”