Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Punitive Damages, Due Process, And Employment Discrimination, Joseph Seiner Jan 2012

Punitive Damages, Due Process, And Employment Discrimination, Joseph Seiner

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court has failed to provide any substantive guidance on when punitive damages are appropriate in employment discrimination cases since it issued its seminal decision in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n over twelve years ago. The Court has recently expanded its punitive damages jurisprudence in the high-profile decisions of Philip Morris USA v. Williams and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. While these cases dramatically altered the way exemplary relief is analyzed in civil cases, the extent to which these decisions apply in the workplace context remains unclear. Surprisingly, there has been almost no academic literature to date explaining how …

Go to article

Epstein's Razor, David G. Owen Oct 2010

Epstein's Razor, David G. Owen

Faculty Publications

Richard Epstein, over a long and distinguished career, has offered inspired insights into how a legal system should be framed to serve the goals of those it governs. In that pursuit, he has relentlessly applied a sharp logic - call it Epstein's Razor - to shave away the detritus of complexity and confusion that surround perplexing problems, leaving standing only truths unscathed by competition among ideas. Over decades of diverse writings on law and political theory, highlighted by his elegant Simple Rules for a Complex World, Professor Epstein offers a vision of law constructed on the view that simplicity in …

Go to article

Aggravating Punitive Damages, David G. Owen Feb 2010

Aggravating Punitive Damages, David G. Owen

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Substantive Due Process Limits On Punitive Damage Awards: "Morals Without Technique"?, F. Patrick Hubbard Apr 2008

Substantive Due Process Limits On Punitive Damage Awards: "Morals Without Technique"?, F. Patrick Hubbard

Faculty Publications

In a series of cases decided over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause to establish a procedural and substantive framework for awarding punitive damages. Initially, the substantive aspects of this framework were sufficiently clear and flexible that they required little change in the system and probably generated a helpful level of debate and uniformity as to some basic requirements for awards. However, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, the Court adopted an approach characterized by a lack of clarity and consistency, an inadequate basis in theory and policy, and ad hoc …

Go to article

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer Jul 2006

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three "guideposts" set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any "civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct." Following up on this pronouncement …

Go to article

Constitutional Law -- Due Process Clause -- Third Circuit Holds That $50 Million Punitive Damages Award In Context Of A $48 Million Compensatory Award Is Unconstitutionally Excessive -- Inter Medical Supplies, Ltd. V. Ebi Medical Systems, Inc., 181 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1999)., A. Benjamin Spencer Dec 1999

Constitutional Law -- Due Process Clause -- Third Circuit Holds That $50 Million Punitive Damages Award In Context Of A $48 Million Compensatory Award Is Unconstitutionally Excessive -- Inter Medical Supplies, Ltd. V. Ebi Medical Systems, Inc., 181 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1999)., A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

In 1996, the Supreme Court, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, struck down a punitive damages award on the ground that it was "grossly excessive" in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . Since BMW, many courts have faced the challenge of applying its principles to determine whether punitive damages awards surpass the constitutional limit. Last June, in Inter Medical Supplies, Ltd. v. EBI Medical Systems, Inc., the Third Circuit faced this difficulty when it considered whether a $50 million punitive damages award, granted in conjunction with a $48 million compensatory damages award, was …

Go to article

If The Punishment Fits - Doctored Bmw Paint Job Returns Punitive Damages Issue To The Court, Richard C. Reuben Nov 1995

If The Punishment Fits - Doctored Bmw Paint Job Returns Punitive Damages Issue To The Court, Richard C. Reuben

Faculty Publications

A lot more is at stake in BMW of North America v. Gore, 94-896, than the legal cost of repainting luxury automobiles, The case returns the issue of punitive damages to the Supreme Court amid complaints by business interests to a receptive Congress that high punitive awards are helping to stifle U.S. economic growth. At the same time, the case carries overtones of federalism, an issue that seems to lurk throughout the Supreme Court's docket these days.

Go to article

Breathe Deeply: The Tort Of Smokers' Battery, Irene Scharf Jan 1995

Breathe Deeply: The Tort Of Smokers' Battery, Irene Scharf

Faculty Publications

This Article explores the long and faltering history of attempts to impose liability on tobacco product manufactures. Part II traces the manufacturers' historical and current actions of targeting youth through both promotions and deceptive advertising. Part III argues in favor of an expanded cause of action against the manufacturers for the intentional tort of battery. Part IV discusses the prospect of awards of punitive damages in these cases, and the Epilogue summarizes other advantages of the battery cause of action.

Go to article

Deterrence And Desert In Tort: A Comment, David G. Owen May 1985