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

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