Since they already have undermined Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Sandoval, the rightwing may have thought they'd be pushing their luck to go for another round, especially since they lacked Sandra Day O'Connors vote because she had to recuse herself because of ownership of DuPont stock.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Robert Dean" <qualiall_2 at yahoo.com> To: <socialistsunmoderated at debs.pinko.net>; <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:23 PM Subject: Supremes rule on 'anti-discrimination'
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&li ve=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/