--jks
>
>Supreme Court ruling favours workers
>By Patti Waldmeir in Washington
>Published: June 4 2001 17:50GMT | Last Updated: June 4
>2001 18:09GMT
>
>"http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3OL7TIKNC&live=true&tagid=IXLYK5HZ8CC"
>
>The US Supreme Court on Monday opened the door to
>higher damage awards for workers who have lost their
>jobs because of illegal discrimination.
>
>Ruling in a sexual harassment case against DuPont, the
>chemical giant, the justices said unanimously that a
>damages cap imposed by federal race, sex and
>disability bias law does not limit so-called front
>pay, or money paid to cover the loss of future pay
>cheques.
>
>Businesses had urged the court to include front pay
>under the cap, which limits compensatory and punitive
>damages to $300,000 for suits against large companies.
>
>
>The case involved a former chemical plant worker who
>won her sexual harassment case, but had damages capped
>at $300,000. She claimed a further $800,000 in front
>pay.
>
>The ruling is a victory for civil rights groups, and a
>defeat for business, which argued that front-pay
>awards are disproportionate to workers' actual losses.
>
>
>Business contends that the 1991 civil rights act, the
>law which imposed the cap, was meant to include a
>measure of tort reform, by limiting runaway damage
>awards. By allowing front-pay awards, which can be
>very large, this measure of restraint is no longer
>available.
>
>But opponents argue that the intent of the 1991 law
>was to increase the money available to victims who
>could already get back pay and front pay before 1991.
>Including front pay under the cap would often mean no
>further damages could be paid, as front pay would
>often exceed the limits on its own.
>
>Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said
>allowing unlimited front-pay accords with the 1991
>law. "In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress
>determined that victims of employment discrimination
>were entitled to additional remedies," Mr Thomas
>wrote.
>
>It is not clear what practical effect Monday's ruling
>will have: most of the federal appeals courts have
>already been applying the law as though front pay is
>not included under the cap. Only one federal circuit
>court, the one in which the DuPont case was heard, has
>been limiting them.
>
>Such damages are especially important where an
>aggrieved employee cannot be reinstated, often because
>of the hostility spawned by lengthy litigation.
>
>In this case, the woman does not want her job back,
>after enduring a campaign of what the lower court
>called "harassment, intimidation and isolation"
>including orders from a superior that co-workers
>should not eat with, speak to, or obey orders from
>her.
>
>Front pay has become increasingly important, as the
>time it takes to litigate such cases has lengthened.
>With such extensive delays, reinstatement is often not
>possible, so employees seek compensation through front
>pay.
>
>Front pay is also particularly significant to older
>workers who, but for the discrimination, probably
>would have remained in their jobs until retirement
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com